This is really a problem. Sure, we all have different motivations for training - but what if you sell me your art in a way that makes me think it is useful for achieving my goals, when really it isn't useful for that? What if I want, or indeed NEED serious self defence skills, and I then believe, because of what you say, that taiji can give me those? Don't get me wrong- I believe the same in many ways; know your core reason for training and pursue it. But you seem to be fusing two things - one, people who don't like contact and want to train slow forms etc., and two, effective fight training. See, you're saying that taiji is like a jian - a skillful martial art that isn't a full on 'broadsword' like other martial arts. But you're also using that to attract people who, as you say, don't want to do hard contact training etc. Tell me, aren't you really selling people the idea that taiji will allow them to become effective fighters without having to do serious fight training? It's like pandering to the people who want to pose as martial artists, but don't want to limp in to work every day. Is it right to do that? What happens when that person faces a real fight, and they realise they aren't prepared at all? What happens when the frst kick in the leg drops them in to a pool of their own puke? When that happens, where will all the taiji people who dismissed cage fighting,etc., as for yobbos etc., be? I'll tell you - in my opinion they willbe the person on the floor getting kicked in in their own puke- then they'll understand; this is what real self defence should prepare you for.
By the by- I was very disappointed that your video on punching power stops before you actually punch the bag to show the power you get from that method. What's that all about?
I have a collection of them. One thing that really, really gets my goat is this whole area of poor self defence training - because it's a crime. People who teach ineffective self defence play a part in the violent crimes that their students suffer. It's a big deal, actually - not enough is made of it. It's a far bigger deal than most of the otherpointless stuff people argue about in martial arts, because it has genuine, devastating effects. I particularly despise people who teach ineffective self defence, but then defend what they do out of purely selfish reasons. Anyway, here's something interesting: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gqVMK...ptyflower.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5935
Certainly ain't Taijiquan as I've seen it done! Definately some dodgy applications going on, although there are some interesting ideas. They're just exploring them in a poor way.
the only logic i see is, that you'll say anything, but the truth.... maybe i can help...repeat after me... I, imperial tai chi guy, do not know judo and do not know K-boxing, so i have no clue what tai chi, can do for it!! see it wasn't too bad now, right!?! Cheers,
Hello Fire-quan, Tai Chi is not magic; I do not for one second assume Tai Chi to be some ultimate b.s.; It just has some good stuff that I like, and it suits me. Basically, what does one want to train for? That's the important question. A 100m runner needs to work out at the gym, as well as running on the track. Cage fight requires a certain set of skills that requires training in a specific way, in a cage fight situation. No slow dancing Tai Chi moves can replace that. We train specifically for our purpose. If a Tai Chi guy wants to join some cage fight competition, he better get as much training in the cage as he can. Purpose. No delusions about that. And you are spot on about the "It's not about 'arts' it's about training methods." I have seen Tai Chi being taught as anything from some "love everybody" stuff to "Tai Chi for Arthritis" to some of the combat orientated groups. It is not just the "art", but how people interpret it. So why do I like Tai Chi? because it help me see things and analyse things. It suits my purpose. It is not sequences of movements but concepts that I can adapt. It gives me freedom to explore without compromise and confusion. I admire the scientific approach of boxers, the effectiveness of Thai Boxers, the courage and toughness of cage fighters, the reflex and finess of fencing; and the variety of ways to how a human can perform in so many different ways. Fire-quan, in a previous post, you mentioned you get frustrated because most Tai Chi and Kungfu people won't listen to you. I get equally frustrated that as soon as I mention I do Tai Chi people immediately put me in a box with a lable "Freak" or "Flower-Child", and want to argue with me and turn everything I said into something else. I NEVER, EVER discredit any martial art styles, yet people forever try to discredit me? Like with Big John; why does he want to argue with me? Is it really about how much I know about Thai Boxing and Judo.... or was it about the fact that I talk Tai Chi up? Seriousely? The bottom line is, I am just another person doing what I like while exploring what possibilities there are. I know there are many mountain higher than mine beyond the horizon. And why do people always argue over what style is better than what? As long as someone is getting what they want out of their training and suits that purpose; and that no one is being cheated and everyone is honest about it, what does it matter? Cheers, John
Why do I go to Guangzhou to get kicked by the street fighters there? Why did I just came back from Systema training with swollen hands and bruises everywhere? Because I want to see my deficiencies. Most of my students are in their own right, martial arts experts who comes to see me to explore. I respect them, and they respect me. I share with them, and they share with me. I have constantly refering people to learn BJJ, Kickboxing and Wing Chun from my friends, because sometimes that may suit their purpose more. I NEVER EVER said "Tell me, aren't you really selling people the idea that taiji will allow them to become effective fighters without having to do serious fight training?" Quote me WHERE I SAID IT: if you cannot, PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS FROM MY MOUTH THAT I NEVER SAID! I am so sick of people twisting my words into something I never said. And your quote "See, you're saying that taiji is like a jian - a skillful martial art that isn't a full on 'broadsword' like other martial arts. But you're also using that to attract people who, as you say, don't want to do hard contact training etc." What did I say after that? "If I am going into battle, I rather bring the broadsword." Which means if I am fighting a lot of people, I rather be tough and powerful and not just relying on the skills of a sword! How the hell did you interpret it into something completely different?
Yes, I think that is the important question - maybe the MOST important question. But here's my thing - if I decide I want to train for a specific thing - say, to explore self defence, sport fighting, health, forms, wushu - whatever - my next step is then to look for the most effective training methods to achieve my aim. What I need is to see the result of the training method - not against me, because by definition I am the 'seeker' of the correct training. If someone teaches wushu but neither they nor anyone they teach can do wushu, would you train with them? If no one, having trained in a specific set of training methods could do wushu, would you consider training in those methods if good wushu was your goal? All I'm saying is it's about methods - the same principles can be expressed to different levels - shallow or deep - and the same arts can be hones or dulled by better or worse training methods. Question for taiji is, which are its useful training methods, and which methods are being missed out in many classes? Well, you implied, with your 'jian' comment, that taiji is a very sophisticated art form not relying on brute strength. If it is, well, before I commit time to training in that method, shouldn't I really need to see some product of the method? Otherwise how do I know? Well, equally, people often accuse me of trying to discredit Chinese martial arts. Sadly, that's an inevitable misunderstanding that I have to live with. Actually, my love of Chinese martial arts is of a profound depth that I can't even rationalize. It's some core part of me. Zhao Dao Xin was asked once if he hated Chinese martial arts, because of his comments, and he said no, actually, his love for Quan was prfound - but if you love something, and it gets sick, you try to help it. Firstly, don't take it personally. People are searching for truth - questioning what you say isn't questioning you. You are not your belief system, you are not taiji. Secondly, there is no 'option' of speaking on a forum without having what you say discussed and debated. People will disagree with you - or, they may chew it over, encourage you to prove or go further in what you say. If you speak, especialy here, expect to have it challenged robustly - all in the name of sport, and occasionaly knowledge. Thirdly, it isn't a virtue to never discredit anyone or anything. Many things deserve dis-credit. If we didn't, knowledge would flounder. Well, I can't speak for Big John, but I know for me, I often read people say things that they haven't thought out the implications of clearly - and then they get upset when their opinion isn't simply accepted without question. I guess we're all a little like that - but don't come here expecting to just say whatever and everyone accept it - that's not how we accrue knowledge; we challenge and debate it to skive off work. For me, I think maybe you're doing the same old thing of saying taiji is this, taiji is that - and after all the millions of millions of words about what taiji can dom, I think people would be happier just seeing a realistic demo of taiji. Otherwise, it is insulting to imply that it is as profound as Judo, or as powerful muay thai - because that's like stealing credibility from those arts by false association. They've all proved the profound depth of their skill set, multiple times. The heroics of taiji are in the past, or in words - in stories. Is that insulting taiji? I think taiji is great - I really do - but I can't bring myself to use words and mind games to get my way out of things that I know to be true. I don't think so - I think you havepresented yourself as an expert, and are therefore open to having your views dissected for truth. Well, there's arguing from the point of view of protecting one's own stlye- and then there's debating training and coachingmethods to find and share those that are best. Why would you dislike that?
Well, if I did, I did it because that's the great joy of the internet - people not understanding a word you say.
I find it very difficult to accept, in the context of this thread and your preceeding comments, that this quote by you isn't intended to mean that the 'jian' is taiji, and the broadsword is other, more 'full contact' arts. You know, but if you say it isn't, then I guess isn't. Question then is, what on earth were you talking about then?
Hello Fire-Quan, You sound like an reasonable guy, and I appreciate you honest and object reply. I just want to make a few things very very clear: 1. Am I good at what I'm doing? I believe I am damn good at Tai Chi. 2. Am I the best? No way. But if I work at it, I could become. Anyone could. 3. I believe there are many useful features in Tai Chi for self defense purposes. But do not have delusions. One must test it against good fighters in different styles. It is better to get whipped in a control environment than have false confidence and get killed on a street. Real fights are ugly and dangerous, and one will get hurt. It is different from movies. 4. There are many other benefits of Tai Chi. 5. I share what I know. I enjoy objective criticism but do not appreciate people twisting my words. 6. I am forever learning. I like to explore things I am not familiar with (may be some cage fighting training next?) Although time is limited. I don't mind pain. Cheers, John
Well, confidence is good. How good is damn good? My method of assessing these things is the 'equivalence' method - say, if each martial art is equal, then there shouldbe an equivalence between say, top amatuer thai boxers, judo, karate and taiji. Is there? Apart from Sami Berik, is there even any taiji fighters? Are you equivalent to top amatuers in those fields do you think? In other words, on a non-personal level, what does it mean, all these fourth duan taiji experts I see, or taiji instructors - what is their level equivalent to, as in, if I put them in a fight with top amatuers of other martial arts, will they hold their own effectively? I don't know about that. See, there has to be some element of personal character in a fighter that can't necessarily be trained - the heart, the spirit. Maybe it can be forged - as in tempered, not faked. But, who is the best at taiji? Chen Xiao Wang? This is a question we have debated many times - what does it actually mean to be the best in the world at taiji? What does that equal to in terms of other martial arts? Is the top taiji guy the fighting equivalent of the top pro boxer, the top amatuer boxer? Or other martial art? Where does he stand? I know it seems like an idle question, but it's really about just how effective and useful taiji training methods are. If taiji and judo are largely for the same thing, then why do taiji if judo teaches you to do it in a tenth of the time? Yeah, I know. Thing is, a move being 'useful for self defence' isn't the point - that's where many fall down, even with practically minded taiji. It's how you train that techniuqe that counts 60% of the result. Good techniques plus good coaching methods. I still feel the problem with taiji is in the coaching, not the art. If muay thai is practiced just for a bit of health and fitness, it doesn't look impressive either nothing does, until it's practiced seriously. Thing is, 'seriously' doesn't necessarily mean doing the form over and over or light apps. Well, what do you consider the benefits? I don't see a lot of taiji guys who look fight capable, and I also see a lot of over weight, unhealthy looking senior taiji people. Obese even. It's not an art that appears to keep people slim in to old age - all the top guys seem to be over weight. Lol- that'swhat the internet is for I'm afraid. And some times it happens - and some times we do say things that have implications we haven't considered. Have you watched cage fight training? A lot of the training is perfectly doable - the training isn't necessarily brutal - sparring, pad work, grappling. People don't actually have to get in a cage and fight just to add realisitc elements to their training.
I dunno - have you ever heard a martial arts expert from China downplay their level? There's a big difference between bragging and not downplaying your level - bragging is asking for kudos beyond what you deserve. Not downplaying it is just, not wanting, but expecting, recognition for your level.
Hello Fire-Quan, OK. You said you like Quan. And you imply that "if you love something and it is sick, you would want to fix it." So how would you go about fixing it? And while this is a forum for discussion, I see many people already formed their own opinion and not really here to discuss, but to slam other ideas that does not fit into their own believes. How are you going to present you ideas? Do you want to take Tai Chi Quan to the next level? If so, how? Cheers, John
Fire-Quan, As I said before, "if you tell me there is a Tsunami coming, I would run up the hills in case you know something I don't". You said you hate those Tai Chi and Kungfu people who won't listen to you. But I do. As I mentioned before, I feel I am labled by people who does not even know me. Tai Chi has such a limp connotation associated with it that, my friend (whom I have tremendous respect for, head of Goju Kensha Karate Melbourne) Sensei James Sumarek (I can never spell his last name right) once told me to call it something else otherwise no one will take you seriousely. I do not have any cage fighter friends, and I am not familiar with the training and I am not going to assume anything. I have, however, participated in sparring, pad work, grappling. I am familiar with realistic elements. But learning the "mind-set" of cage fighters is as important as the physical techniques. Why do people automatically imply that Tai Chi people know nothinig realistic? Have I ever said anything unrealistic? Sorry, this post is jumping around a bit. Cheers, John
Maybe I move in vastly different circles to you FQ....all the martial arts experts I have met from China have been incredably humble and definately dismissed any notion that they were high level. True.
