How I said, I use Taiji(quan) principles (not postures) for fighting. But I'm also interested to see if any (today) "Tai Chi" master/practitioner can use his Taiijiquan (form/postures) for fighting. I'm not saying that "Taijiquan" can't be used for fighting. I only advocate that principles are useful (for fighting) and that postures/form are not.
Hi Guys, Maybe a deep breath is needed and a round or two of form so we all feel better! Since my name is being bandied about I thought that iI would jump in. I would never claim that our school (Zhong Ding) has "fight effective" (whatever that may mean) taijiquan. But there are some people who train with us, I'm certain, who can and have used their art to fight; equally there are some people who train with us who have become happier or healthier through doing so; and of course there are people who have gained nothing at all and who have left. As to taijiquan in Malaysia, I'm sorry to say that in our school, which is all I can talk about with any authority,sadly there are very few who can fight. My teacher's generation are now all well into their seventies; their fighting days are over. The younger generation, on the whole, are just not interested. My students who come over here now who want to get more fighting experience and do fighting training I take to train with my silat teacher - he still has plenty of young students who want to fight. Over the past three years, a dozen or so Zhong Ding students have visited and all of them have fought opponents who are younger, often stronger and fitter, under a number of different rules sets including Muay Thai, Embo, Silat Tua etc. All of these students have survived - we don't really talk about winning or losing in these situations :^) So I do know that some of our students can fight but is it because of Zhong Ding or what we teach? That I can't say. I think it is down to their own desire to learn and grow as martial artists. At its best Zhong Ding is a group of like-minded individuals who want to share a path to martial growth. As such we practise Zhengzi taijiquan, baguazhang, xingyiquan and various styles of silat. I agree absolutely with Fire Quan that the majority of taijiquan exponents cannot fight, and in most cases that is not what they want. I have travelled to China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and Taiwan and the number of exponents of taijiquan I have met that could, in my opinion, actually fight I could count on the fingers of one hand. That doesn't mean that their art is invalid only that the training emphasis is wrong. So whether we are training is Southend, or Singapore the most important thing is what we bring to the practice. How great is our motivation? What are we prepared to do and sacrifice to gain the skills we want? My teachers have always stressed that it is the duty of the student to steal the art from the teacher,; that is what we must do. No matter how authentic the lineage, just by being a member of that lineage is no guarantee that you will get the skills. In my experience if you are totally committed to walking the martial path, the right teacher will appear at the right time. That I have found to be true over the past three decades. As to principles being useful for fighting and posures form not, that seems to eb something of a simplification. I agree postures/form are not used in fights but they should embody the principles in such a way that the exponent's mind and body are trained by them so as to become more effective in fighting. Let me just finish by saying that any of you are welcome to come visit here in Malaysia but it would be far more fun to have a beer than a fight! Best wishes to you all Nigel Sutton
Mr. Nigel Sutton thanks for your answer! I totaly agree that it would be far more fun to have a beer than a fight.
My time on this forum has really, I know, failed. Everything I thought I could achieve in helping others, has failed - no doubt about it. Replaced instead by an overwhelming, stressful negativity which I invited in by choosing to challenge ideas in the way that I have. As I chose to do it, so I chose not to do it now. If I could (ad even if I may not, I am going to anyway!) sum up the ideas that I wanted to get across, it would be - *We've heard it all before, that's true. Really, nothing new needs saying, nor has anyone said anything new for years - centuries probably - in terms of martial arts; we've heard it all. If we're still not getting where we want to be, then what we really need is to understand what we've heard more deeply. And also, we can always use "I've heard it all before" as an excuse not to re-circle those old principles, and just blame everything and anyone if we haven't achieved our aims. *The real opponent is our self - cliche, but so obvious, really. The person who feels inferior wants all the titles and the rank, and gets obsessed with being seen to be better than someone else; the person who feels worthless wants to be seen as the top level, saviour of the world, knows it all; the person who feels afraid wants to be seen as a fighter; the person who feels alone wants to be seen as cool and interesting, something special; the person who feels powerless and weak - well, that's that bully you know; so on and so on... how many of these personal issues there are, I don't know, but everyone has one, and it seems like every vice in martial arts has evolved to hook in to one or more of those personal, secret issues. And I don't think there is any single person who doesn't have one. To me, it's all about wanting martial arts for something other than martial art itself. But we're our own greatest opponent - and our "issue" gets us pretty far sometimes - makes us train hard. But, it's got to be got over in the end, because our core reason for training has got to be wanting the real knowledge more than we wanted those other things. That's what I think. Otherwise, we'll always chose the knowleds that's "bent" by those other things - that hooks in to them. *Wu de means honesty, integrity, courage, most of all in facing ourselves, in my view - and examining our own training - with courage, honesty, intellignece. What is wushu if not discipline, restraint, and realising we're our own worst enemy - and best ally? Most of the popular ideas pertaining to martial art are degenerate - inevitable, because they're based on mass views, and subtle, profound view requires more than Macdonald's level consumption of ideas. But degenerate ideas evolved specifically because egos wanted things to mean what they've come to mean. *Challenging degenerate views brings only negativity in to your life. All we can really do is follow our own path with wu de, and have the courage to challenge our selves. *Mirror mirror - vice is lauded as virtue, virtue spat on as vice. Everything is backwards in Chinese martial arts in the West. *Internal and external really just mean intuitive exploration and copying. Yin and yang - I needed both, I'm sure most people do. *ALL the true ideas are simple. Most of the lies are complex. Fifty poor taiji teachers are protected, because someone wants to protect them. All fun and games - people will decapitate you if you start dismantling the illusion that they've built up around their core issue. It's too stressful. We've got fifty, pretty much, usless taiji teachers round here - useless in terms of "Quan"... but rather than gain something positive - i.e. useful and useable - from pondering what we can extrapolate and learn from that - people would rather beach abvout what the exact percentage is. The exact percentage of people who can use taiji as a useable system isn't known, but on the other hand, like Lao Tzu said, I know the world is like this by looking at it. What's stressful is that the uselessness of those teachers is protected from scrutiny simply by attacking the people that notice that they are useless. If I wanted to continue with my current approach, all there is left to me is to go to people's classes and fight with them, and I'm not going to do that - that makes me look terrible. But if I don't do that, I still look terrible - for NOT doing it. They have it all neatly sewn up to protect themselves from scrutiny. Nigel, you seem ok, wise enough, but your website does say that Zhong Ding teaches useable martial arts. Is it really enough, in the end, to say, well you could use it, in theory? The final thing I think is true, is that no, it's not just the man. Some methods are better than others - some ways of trainign are better than others, and achieve better results, hence, even great champions of various sports go to new, better coaches. Sure, taiji could be used, and sure, some people can use it. But on the whole, it's the method of training that's wrong. If you (general you) don't believe it, take a look at your abilities - that's the only thing that can ever tell you if your method was right for you. And it's not enough to say "well I got a level I was happy with" if you're then making students think that your method made you really good, and that it will do the same for them. It's selling them dust. I like that Crouching Tiger quote that wudang stands for skill, but the real art of quan is a state of mind more than anything else. I think a lot of people's state of mind are focussed on projecting an image of being an expert, rather than on being an expert. But, that's back on to the cycle of seemingly negative, outrageous, trolling commentary. Summed up - maybe the only missing basic is the state of mind, and everythign else would flow naturally from that. And maybe that's how we'll know that it is the real state of mind. I hope you all find what you're looking for - and I recommend Typeon as a real source of true information on practical, effective taiji for those who are looking for it, but like it told in a nicer, less confrontational way.
The 3 things that define the combat performance are: 1) Tools (combat system) - 10-20%, 2) Skills (physical skills) - 20-30% and 3) Mindset (psychological part) - 50-70%. No combat system can help you if you don't have the right mindset and enough developed skills. Also the person (master) is not the measure to define if the system is effective or not. Taijiquan is a "combat system" (so there we have up to 10-20%) and also is used to dovelope physical skills (and there up to 20-30%). So, where Taijiquan fail with its "combat" orientation? In my opinion there are two things wrong with today Taijiquan: 1) the mindset is too peaceful (we lose up to 50-70%) and 2) tools are non lethal (we lose up to 10-20%). The "skills" that are developed with Taijiqunan are "perfect" for fighting (but are not enough)! I use the "sklls" of Taijiquan (looseness, balance, coordination, sensitivity,..) and as "tools" simple lethal strikes. Also I use aggressive mindset. This works! "Peaceful" (no right tools and no right mindset) Taijiquan will not. There are many principles of Taijiquan that can be effectively used in fights. Some of they are: -> Use one ounce to deflect a thousand pounds. => Looseness [Higher loosenes higher speed and power.] -> Distinguish insubstantial and substantial. => Balance [Better balance better control of the attacker.] -> The motion should be rooted in the feet, released through the legs, controlled by the waist and manifested through the fingers. => Coordination [Better coordination higher power.] -> From the most flexible and yielding one will arrive at the most powerful and unyielding. => Sensitivity [Better sensitivity faster reactions.] So in my opinion we must only add (or use) effective tools in Taijiquan and have the right mindset. And the answer to this thread is: "Yes, Taijiquan is for fighting".
Hold on, what you are saying is that you are wondering why taking a arbitrary dogmatic stance and attacking every other idea or contradictory evidence hasn't helped. I can help out here. Your point is: Tai Chi = Bad Yi Quan = Good I think that sums up your 2000 or so posts
Hello Oldyang, I like your opinion on these:- 1) Is not your "tools" too little? Everyone knows how to punch and kick in a lethal straight-forward manner. Seems Taiji has many more qinna's, etc. or maybe very much more? 2) If I have 72qinna's + Hsingyi + LiuHe techniques. With these more tools(learned), is it not better? 3) About being aggressive and peaceful, I read that in an Indonesian silat system, a master said that if one is attacked, he should first give four evasions:- 1st - assume the attack as that of a mother's attempt to teach her child 2nd - assume the attack as that of a father's attempt to teach his son 3rd - assume the attack as that of a brother's attempt to correct a brother 4th - assume the attack as that of an enlightend person wanting to teach Only at the 5th attack that a true silat practioner can retaliate with force. This seems to have some agreement with Taiji and Aikido.
Hi Fire-quan, I am neither OK or wise, I'm a human being which means that sometimes I'm OK, sometimes not; as to wisdom, too little, too seldom I'm afraid. In Zhong Ding we do teach useable martial arts; I would be very interested to see examples of websites where instructors advertise arts which they label as useless. The arts I teach are there to be learnt, to be "stolen" but that in no way guarantees that everyone who comes to learn will get fighting skills - as I tried to say before it all depends on their motivation. I agree some methods are more efficient in training people to fight but if we consider only methods and miss out the man then we are not going to get the whole picture. Consider this that today in the western educational environment the student assumes that the teacher has a duty to teach them as best as s/he can. This was never the traditional teacher/student model in the Asian martial arts; hence all the stories of potential students being tested to the extreme, having to wait outside the Shaolin Temple for months etc. This was to ensure that the "raw material" that the teacher finally got to mould was suitable for the learning process. This is the opposite of the western model. Now the teacher relies on the student for income reputation or whatever, the more students the better. If these studenst are going to help their teacher get fame, reputation or just more students through the medium of cage fighting then sure, there are more efficient training methods. Taijiquan, to take one example, nowadays is all about form. Yet in an ideal world with the right kind of students, form would be one of the last things I would teach. To take another example, my silat teacher insists that the first lessons his students learn are all to do with how to deliver and take pain - if they can't do this how can they fight? The next lessons involve strength, stamina and speed; with these down they can go on to learn the more delicate aspects of what, in taijiquan terms, would be form. Now these students are expected to fight on a regular basis and at the drop of a hat. If they don't fight they are "asked" to leave the school. If I were training taijiquan fighters, the above model would be the one I would be most likely to adopt. As it is, most (99%) of my taijiquan students do not come to taijiquan to learn how to fight. My teachers' generation who used their taijiquan to fight were all Jing Men/Bai Shi (initiated disciples) which meant they trained in semi-secrecy in small groups with their master. He would beat them, attack them and generally manhandle them, which they referred to as "sparring" . They would practise the neigong methods (internal strength exercises) and then get beaten to "prove" it worked. They would practise solo moves and sequences from the form both solo, with weights and in application. They would perform strengthening exercises with heavy weapons, and they would spar with each other. In many cases they lived with their teacher and all describe training so hard that they could not walk upstairs at the end of the day. This was their method. It worked they were fighters whether in full-contact competition, as Heishihui enforcers or just as plain tearaways. Their taijiquan worked for them. Their taijiquan works for me (this is not belief but nor am I going to go into lurid details of streetfighting prowess), it has worked and works for some of my students, those who are prepared to train using the "method" described above. All of my students who can use their art usually cross-train in other arts precisely so that they can put their art to the test. I have some limited experience of yiquan; Gao Ziying who was my first baguazhang teacher in Beijing was the brother-in-law of Wang Xiangzai's cook and thus got to train with the man himself. He appreciated the art enough to incorporate some of its methods into our Gao style baguazhang. I am sure, however, that there are many people who do yiquan who cannot fight. The truth of the matter is that fighting, to most in the Western world, is not the survival priority that it used to be, which brings us back to motivation. If a person is motivated to learn how to fight they will do so, whatever the method. Sorry for rambling. Best wishes Nigel Sutton
slowwins: 1) No, the percentage for "tools" is not too little. Behind the move must be used some skills (like power, speed, timing,..) also there must be the "intent" (killer instinct) to do so. Without that any tool is useless! In the last 150 year Taijiquan became very " peaceful" and "non-lethal", but originaly (in my opinion if it was really an "unbeatable" martial art) there was all martial movements/ techniques (no limitations). 2) No, "more" tools is not better! Better have few tools that perfectly mastered. However in my opinion specific "techniques" are not the best choice. Better to know how to move. Techniques are only consequence of movement. 3) In self-defense there must be used aggression to defend ourselfs. If there is sport fighting, there could be also a peaceful side. I can't agree that "only at the 5th attack … can retaliate with force". Because if the attacker want to kill us with the first attack, he will not arrive "at the 5th attack". Also if there are more attackers or they are armed. We must react aggressively and decisively immediately! Only if the attacker has no bad intentions or is not skilled we can wait for "the 5th attack".
Hello oldyangtaiji, Thanks for the answers. They are reasonable views based on one's experience and outlook towards life. I have no experience to add comments
Oh please come back you are so wise and clever and you never directly contradict yourself, well rarely. OK maybe not rarely - but not usually on the same page, sometimes but not usually. Or the same post, yeah very rare to be in same post. Well maybe not that rare but you usually delete or edit it out when you notice it, then never mention it again. Why won't they take you seriously?
Want to see how Tai Chi can be used for Fighting? Look up this scenes from "Tai Chi Master": - [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqYxnnbMWDI"]YouTube[/ame] - [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxAdxqQKEQk"]YouTube[/ame] Look how looseness, balance, coordination and sensitivity are used. Look how the Taiji principles are used. Look the yielding and the use of Yin and Yang! OK, there are a lot of fiction moves inside, but are also some very interesting Taiji principles used. This is a very good interpretation how "Tai Chi" can be used for fighting.
The Taiji principles are very useful for fighting, not the Taiji "postures". I use for fighting simple open hand strikes and principles like yielding (use one ounce to deflect a thousand pounds), not being double-weighted (distinguish insubstantial and substantial), not using external muscular force (Li), Yin and Yang (from the most flexible and yielding one will arrive at the most powerful and unyielding),.. Taiji postures are too limited and ineffective. Better to use full body and not be limited within the postures. Principles are the "way" postures are the "result". We could be not limited with the postures. The Taiji postures are only examples. The body could do many more movements using the Taiji principles.
I especially enjoyed Mr. Sutton's description of his teacher's generation's training.These are exactly the methods described by a disciple I know of one of CMC's branches in Malaysia.I later read an article on CMC's TC in Malaysia in Asian Journal of MAs a corroborative statement by one of the disciples "elder brothers" that a lot of their training was being beaten up by their teacher. Hard training,no matter the system there's no other way.
Wow ... can I become Jedi too? Meng, meng, meng, meng ... meng, meng ... is the sound of a two stroke dwindling off into the distance.
Lol @ the movie fu.. I would never have thought THAT would be your idea of good taiji being used Old Yang.. Never in million years. I'm being sarcastic of course.. Your expecttion is all wrong in this thread. I think if you had spent a good amount of time with a good tai chi instructor you wouldn't have this issue with postures/ tai chi movements. The applications of them can be used in various ways, and some can be very useful on a consistant basis. Brush knee for instance is a posture I have used a lot in competative sparring to either take people down or even to hit them. There are plenty of useful applications, and in the process of that : principles - that can be taken from tai chi postures / movements. usage varies from precise form movements, understandably so, The postures and form movements are fairly generic in that respects. There will often be more than one way to apply it. you have to factor in different positions, set ups etc. But you will still be basically applying the same posture /movement. Snake creeps down translates to a firemans carry for another example. Personally I can see and recognise the principles you seem to be talking about in real fighting of all kinds eg. boxing, judo, wrestling, bjj etc. There are even people who have studied taiji that demo it to. For instance what problem do you have with the Wudang clip you posted of those students fighting. They where using principle AND postures from Wu tai chi to fight with. Exactly what you were asking/ looking for. but you post Master of taichi movie instead Another example. In that clip (Wudang students) you see a hip throw executed - an application of Crane spreads wings in this Wu style - can't speak for every Wu style though as i havn't experience of them. no need for movie fu whatsoever.. But personally i don't think you have had or have access to good tai chi people to learn directly from - being where you are and all. What recognised lineage teachers have you trained with (for example) ? Now I'm not saying that lineage on its own is a direct indication of skill and fighting ability. But it's a good place to start.. i do know however you have a very large collection of books and media on tai chi. Not compensating for a lack of access to a descent teacher by any chance eh?
Walang Kadung - You didn't understand what I was talking about. I will not waste words. cloudhandz - How I said there are a lot of fiction moves inside (the Tai Chi Master movie), but are also some very interesting Taiji principles used. You also didn't understand what I was talking about. Please don't talk about "good tai chi instructor"s because they are almost extincted and many instructors (and lineage teachers) are the reason for the (today) Taijiquan bad reputation. I'm not saying that Taiji postures have no applications or that they can't be useful, but that they are not efficient in real fighting. There are many "lineage teachers" in Taijiquan, but really few know how to fight. I will not waste words, the today bad Taiji reputation speaks by itself. The majority of today Taijiquan schools/styles are and teschers/instructor teach mostly for health and they have limited applicability for real fighting. It is a well-known fact that today are no mentionable Taiji fighters around.
OYT I am interested in which part of either of those videos you think bears any resemblance to the reality of a violent conflict. My reason, I don't see anything. Let's not get into theory, lots of things are cool 'in theory' - the oxford tai chi stuff looks realistic and effective to me in reality. Gotta agree with cloudhandz on the universal principles thing too, taiji has no claim to being the only art using these principles, they all use these principles to greater or lesser extents and in different ways. Even within taiji there are many ways to use it depending on your body type and size, a big mofo will get plenty of value out of certain postures in one way while a smaller framed individual may use them completely differently.
cloudhandz - BTW, please show me any (video) of yours "lineage teachers" (only one) how they use Taijiquan for fighting? I am not talking about the "cooperative" demonstrations but about a full contact fight (with MMA rules). Until then please don't talk about lineages and other BS that is surrounding Taijiquan. fatb0y - About what video do you talking about? If you refer to the "Tai Chi Master" movie I was talking about how some Taiji principles are used (demonstrated and exaggerated within the movie) not about the "resemblance to the reality of a violent conflict". If you refer to any other video (on Taijiquan) that I was talking about, as I know there is no Taijiquan video that has "any resemblance to the reality of a violent conflict".
