My brain's not at it's best today, but I'll try to respond. Sorry if it's crap.
BruceP wrote:Principles and methods
The principles are fairly universal among the different lineages. The methods are 8 and five. Everything else is superfluous and 'stylistic'.
The what (principles) may be universal among lineages, but the how varies dramatically. Different approaches to developing the kua (for instance) can result in dramatic changes in terms of what's available with regards to dantien movement, stepping, and everything. Of course, no two people are ever the same in practice, but somewhere on the spectrum we kind of get a feeling where reasonable folk can agree that yeah, this is different. It's like your taking a punch drill. At some point of graduating intensity, a push becomes a hit. Where exactly is the line of demarcation? It can be tough to articulate but I would guess is generally understood by the participants. So at some point, an accumulation of a lot of little variances is enough to hit that tipping point of being something else.
BruceP wrote:Organization of the principles and methods is often based on the paid that is given to the whole yin-yang thing. When in actuality, the organization should be based on the inflection point - Neutrality Principle.
If you just go by the criteria laid out in the classics, the best taiji fighters I've ever met had never practiced taiji and had nothing much resembling internal body mechanics, but they understood yielding, borrowing, and what it takes for a little guy to beat up a big guy when the fighting wasn't just for fun. So they embodied a lot of the principles from a strategic standpoint, but couldn't really be said to be doing taiji. I agree (and then some) that there is room for unique self-organizaton around that inflection point, but there also have to be constraints. One set of constraints is imposed by reality and is necessary for effectiveness, but there's another set of constraints that have to come into play to have taiji-ness, as a formal discipline. I'm guessing in your method this equates to the core exercises (corn grinding, etc) you impart from day one.
BruceP wrote:In his Traditional Training thread, John Wang talked about having his beginners start wrestling right off the hop so they can find something that works naturally for them, and then building their fightiness off of that. He's getting them to tap into the basic physicality of their Personal Combat from a very good place.
I love that method, and as you know am a huge fan of what you've facilitated around learning over the last... years. I need more of that stuff in my own training-- but when it comes to discussion of technical details there's only so much a Yang stylist can say to me as someone seeking a very particular lineage of Chen style that's of any interest. In light of your approach, if you and I were to train together, one could say that I might build a personal combat that's more aligned with Chen style while you build something more aligned with Yang style, while we were both doing the exact same drills. That's awesome, but in terms of discussion it would behoove us to look at the process rather than specific personal outcomes, and often (on RSF and in life) it's a distinction I think most people don't make.
Steve Rowe wrote:As BruceP said. You can even say between Karate and Tai Chi, the deeper you go principle based that we all have an inside and an outside, a spine, core and limbs etc and we're all looking for the 'optimum' way to do things, so the periphery may look very different to the non trainer but the deeper you go the more everything becomes the same.
The idea that a single 'optimum' exists for all things doesn't really track. The ideal for boxing is not the same for MMA. Environmental factors play a huge part in the evolution of a style-- a lot of Japanese styles assume the opponent is in armor, whereas Phillipino styles might assume very lightweight clothes and sweaty skin. This would change grappling techniques, for instance, quite a bit. That's an obvious example, but there are lots more tied to culture, etc. Different taiji styles continued to evolve in divergent circumstances, and were carried on through the years in circumstances that changed still more. I would go further and say it changes still more with preference towards striking vs grappling, weapons or unarmed, etc. And much like a lot of technology we see today, what wins out has to do with many factors besides base superiority. A steam engine could be as or more efficient than an internal combustion engine, it's just that someone solved the big problem with internal combustion a little before someone else solved the big problem with steam. Sometimes evolution is convergent, sometimes it's divergent. Otherwise, we would all be sharks.