the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

I think there is enough divergence between the various lineages that they can be considered totally separate arts. Compare Chen Zhonghua with Chen Yu - both could be considered grand-students of Chen Fake, but they have totally different foundational methods to their practices. Comparing Chen style to Yang style, etc. the differences can be even bigger. One could argue common origins and some similarities, but the same is true for Wing Chun, White Crane, and Karate, yet no one considers those all to be the same art.

Just food for thought, as I didn't want to derail another thread.

1. OK
2. But with Chen family art (Chenshitaijiquan) there is a common and objetive thread that one can see a chain/line of training and shared common teachers despite the branches of Yang, Wu, Woo, Sun et al
3. There are those who see the reality vs the illusion of training, conditioning and belonging so this is acted out uniquely in the real world.
4. I am guessing that as long as their is ownership per the teacher(s) regardless of different views (martial, yangsheng, etc) then all is good

WIth karate as you stated, this is also true. THe art diverged to an extent that they have become unique

The only difference is how you train per the below link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kv8HkGWo2Q

Principles and methods

The principles are fairly universal among the different lineages. The methods are 8 and five. Everything else is superfluous and 'stylistic'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your karate may be like tai chi Steve but most isn't
You just have to watch Kanazawa do tai chi to know he missed the mark
I don't like to call what I do tai chi not because it isn't ,but because it is not what the general populace calls tai chi.
The first time I trained with Dan Innosanto I couldn't believe how much he moved like my teacher
Those who evolve to a high level in any art tend to move in the same manner
The biggest problem is these days people start to pass on what they are learning not what they have learned
I remember years ago a CLF practicioner told me his teacher would not let him teach
He asked my advice and I told him if he really deeply understood something it was up to him
I thought he would take the hint,he was terrible.
Next time I saw him he said he had taken my advice and was teaching
I have been more direct with people since then
Bruce lee regretted naming his art.
Tai chi/not tai chi
It doesn't change the facts but at times it is false advertising or spin at the least

What do you think of it Willie
How old is he in the clip

So because Ali (let's call him "yang style") and Tyson (let's call him "chen style") fought, looked, and trained (to their strengths) somewhat differently from eachother they were doing different arts and there's no such thing as "boxing"...

hmmm.

There would be a lot less arguments amongst Tai Chi practitioners if we could agree that there isn't "one Tai Chi Chuan", and that we're all doing different martial arts.

Unfortunately, the marketing machine has already decided that "there is only one Tai Chi Chuan..."

Jesus, we're not doing "different martial arts" we're doing different styles of tai chi. Why is that so difficult ?
There are different styles of boxing, karate, wing chun etc.
So why so hard for that to get through, I mean we call them by different style names already.

I have no idea what the issues are here, it's silly. Mostly all just semantics. If you know taiji, you know it and can recognise it.
Do you really need to sit and write all this intellectualizing and semantics or sit and naval gaze about it.. because you know when people cross hands in some way a lot of any formal system stylistic difference dissapears too because fighting becomes (is) personal and not so nitpicking as a TCMA guy is!

There is one tai chi art, like boxing is one art. there are just different systems/styles of training it/ doing it. And when you look closer there's lot's and lot's of overlap in them. It's like looking at pictures of different mountains - no two are the same - and knowing the things that (still) make a mountain a mountain.

wayne hansen wrote:Your karate may be like tai chi Steve but most isn't
You just have to watch Kanazawa do tai chi to know he missed the mark
I don't like to call what I do tai chi not because it isn't ,but because it is not what the general populace calls tai chi.
The first time I trained with Dan Innosanto I couldn't believe how much he moved like my teacher
Those who evolve to a high level in any art tend to move in the same manner
The biggest problem is these days people start to pass on what they are learning not what they have learned
I remember years ago a CLF practicioner told me his teacher would not let him teach
He asked my advice and I told him if he really deeply understood something it was up to him
I thought he would take the hint,he was terrible.
Next time I saw him he said he had taken my advice and was teaching
I have been more direct with people since then
Bruce lee regretted naming his art.
Tai chi/not tai chi
It doesn't change the facts but at times it is false advertising or spin at the least

Karate have their own Taiji taolu's - Taikyuku Kata, well they are nothing at all like the Chinese Taiji forms, but still bearer of the Taiji name and Karate is a 'quan' Kanazawa's Chinese TJQ performance would probably not win any Taolu competitions

When they were training boxing and fighting in the 1920's and 1930's.. for example. How much can you say the training and fighting is like todays. Yes It's quite different, but the art is still boxing (the rules, guidelines, principles, primary methods like punching..). No one goes around using it as a reason to talk some clever sounding zen shit about there being no such thing as "boxing"....... what happened was evolution (you could argue devolution in some cases of martial art i'm sure) and passing through different generational hands. Same as what happens with any martial art. As long as there are different people there will be different styles (ways of doing things).

At first a mountain is a mountain, then.. a mountain is no longer a mountain... but guess what happens next?
yes, a mountain is a mountain again.

you'll get there

wayne hansen wrote:What do you think of it Willie
How old is he in the clip

I think that he has a wealth of knowledge that is fast becoming lost forever.
I personally don't know him, But I can say that he is more like my teacher and less like the many.

It's seems that most people are just trying to acquire good peng jin, They have forgotten the waza.
"My teacher has mastered the waza".

cloudz wrote:Jesus, we're not doing "different martial arts" we're doing different styles of tai chi. Why is that so difficult ?
There are different styles of boxing, karate, wing chun etc.
So why so hard for that to get through, I mean we call them by different style names already.

I have no idea what the issues are here, it's silly. Mostly all just semantics. If you know taiji, you know it and can recognise it.
Do you really need to sit and write all this intellectualizing and semantics or sit and naval gaze about it..

There is one tai chi art, like boxing is one art. there are just different systems/styles of training it/ doing it. And when you look closer there's lot's of overlap in them. A lot.

If I might add.

The focus changed from one of developing a person according to a given set of tools contained in a system, allowing them freedom to express according to their talent and needs. ie Boxing.

To one of preserving a system Chen, Yang, Wu, ect. "taiji", insuring its preservation with out change never managing to demo or use the system
in any measurable way out side of the many demos showing skill sets that some how never manage to make it into actual usage by
the leaders in the art "Publicly" A departure from the founders who in many aspects had more in common with with "boxers or MMA guys of our time.
The founders didn't talk about the theories they used them.


Privately the arts were used

You might remember my saying that a lot of Mr. Long's students used his White Crane in the streets -- just as there were guys in our later school where were bouncers. But some of Mr. Long's students were street gang members, and a few of them had developed really interesting and unique ways of using White Crane.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26234&start=45 and tested,
maybe not againts those of equal skill....why would one?