People using speed and power is normal in martial arts and competitive situations as it would be in any combat situation. I don't fully agree with your middle paragraph you have bolded. Yes, it can and does often get messy, it isn't all clean crisp techniques. But guess what that is completely normal and in line with any competitive format. Speaking from experience, some very skilled people have gone the tournament route and I'm sure the majority would say that this kind of pushing and exposure has improved them to a man. It's not like you suddenly stop doing other forms of training that are more co operative or you can play the same games with less intensity (nothing really matches the intensity of organised comps). I have seen plenty of skill at these competitions, to say that only speed and power are used to get results would be wrong. To be fair, it is fairly likely that those with less experience, or people matched at similar skill will find it harder to use sensitivity and skill in these matches to overcome speed and power. But it is not possible to reach such aims without this format of practice, simple as that. Principles exist in all martial arts, these are aims and ideas for all to strive at, however they are not absolutes especially when it comes to questions of survival and protection. It's a clear trend in tai chi for some teachers to put ideals and principles first and practicality second. When really a median approach is more appropriate. Yes we strive for technical proficiency, skill, the principles of our style. But not at the expense of getting the job done - when it matters. Once that happens the martial art turns into an art form for its own sake. This is quite clearly happened amongst a lot of tai chi and it is down to too many instructors not wanting to face the realities involved in martial practices One thing to remember dealing with high levels of speed, power and freedom with skill is way harder and takes way more skill (skill that is usable in a live setting) than dealing with lower levels of those things. How is it possible for you not to improve in this process of training and testing? To say otherwise I think exposes a lack of experience and subsequent understanding regarding the judgement being made here.
Why do people say things like "exert no force at all". That's ridiculous; even if this skilled person only redirected your force so you just couldn't get at them they would still need to apply force, just in a skilled and efficient manner - IOW no more than they needed to.
Fair point. I suppose it isn't accurate from a scientific POV to say that they have used no force at all! What I actually meant was that they aren't using any muscular tension. They are completely relaxed. My fault for assuming that you would know what I meant, I should have been more precise.
It's not even a scientific point of view but the lay persons. This is plain language not scientific language spoken between scientists. This is what is spoken between (lay)people in classes and on forums. When you say things like that to students they will take it at face value hence all the dodgy ideas and beliefs you find in tai chi classes. Another problem of interpreting ideas, language and knowledge from a past era. Where their knowledge and understanding (paradigm) of anatomy and physiology was completely different in comparison. The way the body works is complex, talking in terms of complete relaxation where muscles are concerned is not a very good fit at all. "song" the word used in the Chinese is describing for example the way a cat moves, jumps, runs. The cat may look quite smooth and effortless, but you can bet your house the muscles are working (contracting - creating tension/ relaxing) as they should, naturally and in harmony. The power generated is not stiff or forced, that's all. Cats differ with many humans in that they don't need to train it and be instructed to lose some unnecessary tension. There is muscle "tension" in the body that is natural, useful and needed for certain tasks and there is the tension that is not. Such as having localised tension in the shoulders that is quite common to see when some people hold them up higher than they need to. It can be quite the process for some people to open up the body and really let go of local unnecessary tension held in the body.
What I was saying was that they aren't using muscular tension to push the other person. Obviously a degree of tension would have to be present in their muscles to hold them up and to move, but that tension is kept to the absolute minimum, in fact it is reduced as far as is possible. The pushing itself doesn't come from muscular tension but from body mechanics.
"Body mechanics" is the efficient use of muscles. You can't push, move, or position any part of yourself other than by using muscles.
Yes. And I would assume that the less tension there is in the muscles then the more efficient the movement, since less energy is being used.
P.S. Are there actual examples of guys who beat all the 'wrestlers' so effortlessly that the competition is just a wast of their time? Any video of them doing it? An Olympic medal in Greco Roman awaits them if they're able to neutralise trivial things like strength, speed and technique.
OK, so you can't say things like "aren't using muscular tension". As technique improves your issued force might asymptotically approach zero, but it can't ever reach it.
*yawn* Don't these arguements about symantics get boring??? Seriously, when Johnno wrote "without exerting any force at all", I was able to interpret that he meant using the minimum amount of force necessary. People who have done taiji/tai chi for a while are familiar with this common phrase, and are able to understand it's true meaning. Why do we have to jump up and down saying "but that's not what you said! blah blah blah".. Obviously, there will be times when someone may genuinely misunderstand and take it literally, but a certain amount of common sense when reading posts couldn't hurt, surely?
I think it's a fairly important point because it makes clear that technique is a multiplier for force rather than a replacement. In the context of this thread I think it puts in its proper, imaginary, place the idea that you can be so good that competition against an opponent of slightly lower skill but enormous physical strength has nothing to teach you.
I don't think it takes that much to be accurate in this instance - There's a big difference in saying no force at all and the minimum needed. It's a simple distinction and one that needs to be made given the history and opinions around TCC practice. There's really no excuse to be lazy and perpetuate memes and myths that have no correlate or basis to how things actually are. Expecting that phrase to come across as a metaphor for something else is misplaced. There are metaphors where anyone will just get it, and are common phrases or saying. Not the case here really. If someone has no experience of tai chi, they will take it at face value, surely we expect plenty of such people to read this; maybe they practice other martial arts. I pulled it up because even though I have experience in and around TCC, I know full well as you should do that there ARE people in TCC who believe it literally (or to an unrealistic extreme position) when they say such things. Johnno might not be one of those people, but that's no reason to not pull him up on being lazy about and perpetuating inaccurate language on a given topic.
I see your point Though a fair portion of the previous page of this thread derailed into back-and-forth, when I think both sides knew what was initially meant. I don't know; maybe if someone had said "Sorry, when you said 'no force' did you mean 'minimum force required'?" Would have been a lot quicker to clear up, then the initial discussion could have gone forward... I know I'm feeding into this now, but I do get tired of seeing good threads become derailed over something so minor as this, especially when it could have been cleared up a lot quicker with a simple confirmation..
I hear what you're saying and a lot of the times I would likely let it slide if there's nothing else (point of contention) connected to it in the discussion and felt the above was the case. However if you read through it seemed like the position set out by Mr Kleins post was being somewhat supported by Johnno on the grounds that competitive practice degenerates into 'wrestling' and that this was somehow an inhibitor to progress in TCC. And that rather than use "tai chi principles" people reverted to reliance on scoring with strength and speed. Apart from somehow implying that force (power) and speed are not needed or not good in TCC it was also implicit in the arguments that attempting learning to deal with them in such an environment was somehow "not worth it". I'm paraphrasing but the question was often put "to learn what"? regards such competitive matches These notions need to be challenged on some level. In justification things were said that are not really the case, so as to make the respective arguments and their merits and lack thereof clearer; these things get pointed out. I recall this thread being pretty dead for a fair while until Mr. Kleins post, but by all means though pick up on any points of discussion you see as worthwhile in the thread. All good. cheers
Sometimes it's impossible to tell whether someone is nitpicking just to be a clever dick, or whether they genuinely don't know what you are referring to. If in doubt, I think it's more courteous to assume the latter! I tend to make the mistake of assuming that only Taiji practitioners read threads in the Taiji forum, so I tend to write posts with th eassumption that people wil understand me without having to spell every little thing out.
Yea but you would be kidding yourself not just others when you treat the use of "force" like a dirty word or something that's not the done thing. This is how it comes across to be honest when such phrases are used, I think that's the issue - the impression given is not a desirable one in my view. In defence you use minimum force to re direct or evade the others, in offense you use well placed and timed force to the degree you need or want to achieve the desired technique and effect. Where on earth did this crazy notion of "not using any force" come from and why use it anyway ? I don't know of any good answers to this. Other than " oh well, you know what I meant.." There's not a martial art on the planet that instructs people to "force" techniques against another's resistance. Which makes it somewhat redundant used this way. Good taiji is in large part generating and issuing power (fa jin), IOW force as well as the intelligent efficient use of it both defensively and offensively. The language you seem to prefer is to me outdated, not accurate and perpetuates ideas that lead to degenerative martial arts - and I have seen the proof of that unfortunately. "No force" is the equivalent of empty force or Lin Kong Jin, which whilst I know that's not what you wanted to imply or at all what you meant; but can you really be so sure some people won't take it that way, I'm not at all sure. I hope this doesn't bore people too much or is just seen as nit-picking over semantics to appear big and clever. I genuinely think in this case "God is in the detail", an obvious metaphor by the by
To save us going backwards and forwards over who-said-what and what-they-really-meant ad nauseum, let me just try and express things in a different way: What we are trying to achieve with push hands practise is greater relaxation and less tension, while maintaining correct structure. Is that a statement that you agree with?
I don't think those are the explicit reasons to practice "push hands", but do come as part of the package. I would also say that you have to get more specific when you talk about push hands, because to be honest it's something of an umbrella term for a very wide range of practices. On top of that different styles do things differently for their own reasons. So you can practice all sorts of things through "push hands". I would also question what you really mean by "relax" and how far "greater relaxation" extends. Yes on maintaining good structure, I would say that's a given or implicit - much like "song". "Song" and good alignment/ structure are implicit in both form and push hands. Without going into the specifics right now there are different training emphasis and reasons for practicing compliant and non compliant pushing respectively. One of the problems in such discussions is people don't properly differentiate between free pushing and push hands patterns. Here's an article that talks about free push hands and the competition aspect: http://www.fivewindsglasgow.co.uk/F...011/6/10_Free_Pushing_by_Stephen_Douglas.html
