tai chi experts?

[Taiji fan]

If I may interject, Taijiquan actually falls under the practice of Qigong, not Gungfu;

?????????? since when? Qigong is qigong Taijiquan is 'boxing'. Infact since gong fu/kung fu/gungfu etc simply means aquired skill......qigong is also gong fu/ Kung fu/gungfu. Taijiquan is martial art, that happen ( due to the manner of the training) to strengthen the body. Yang taijiquan (or at least its variations) are the most widely practiced but Chen is the original. Yang Jwing Mings ideas on taijiquan are very 'interesting' although I would tend to recommend Fu Zhongwen's Mastering Yang style Taijiquan over any of Yang Jwing Ming's publications.

:asian:

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Taiji fan
My appologies, my comments were not intended to offend...

No worries, I wasn't offended, its hard to really convey emotions via this medium. I understand what your saying.

Originally posted by Crouching Tiger
If I may interject, Taijiquan actually falls under the practice of Qigong, not Gungfu;

Qigong and Taiji are actually different. Taiji falls under Taiji. Its like using the term Kung Fu. Wouldn't every CMA fall under Kung Fu? But in reality we don't use the word that way, because there are somewhere around 300 different styles of Kung Fu, actual complete martial art systems.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

When asked, my instructor and Stewart Olson, will tell you that our style of Tai Chi is Yang style. I've studied under another Yang system though and I was surprised at the differences. In fact, I really didn't understand how they both could be the same system! Then I read an old book by Robert W. Smith and Donn Draeger and in it, Robert Smith breaks down CMA for the western reader for perhaps the very first time. It is interesting to note that Smith was also a student of CMC, by his own admission, and he considered Chen Men Ching to be an excellent martial artist. I wonder if the differences in the systems can be seen by going back to which Yang trained who. Forgive me if I mangle this, but I don't have the book infront of me, but Yang Lu Chan had two grandsons that survived the murder of his family. Both of these men carried on the tai chi tradition. Yang Cheng Fu changed what his grandfather taught him though, taking out a lot of the silk reeling fa jing and making it more of a hidden and healing art. Yang San hou, on the other hand, kept the silk reeling and taught the applications more directly. Basically from my vantage point, both are Yang, but they are interpretations. With Yang San Hou you can see the effectiveness and applications readily. With Yang Cheng Fu, it takes an instructor to point them out.

All this about knee problems...in class we NEVER put our knees over the line of our toes. Perhaps that is TT Liangs interpretation of CMC.

upnorthkyosa

 

[pete]

Yang Jwing Mings ideas on taijiquan are very 'interesting' -Taiji fan.

please elaborate...

i'm not loking for trouble, i have no affilliations, heck, i don't even practice any of the "yang" styles... if you'd rather not post, please pm

thanks,
pete

 

[Crouching Tiger]

Originally posted by Taiji fan
?????????? since when? Qigong is qigong Taijiquan is 'boxing'. Infact since gong fu/kung fu/gungfu etc simply means aquired skill......qigong is also gong fu/ Kung fu/gungfu. Taijiquan is martial art, that happen ( due to the manner of the training) to strengthen the body. Yang taijiquan (or at least its variations) are the most widely practiced but Chen is the original. Yang Jwing Mings ideas on taijiquan are very 'interesting' although I would tend to recommend Fu Zhongwen's Mastering Yang style Taijiquan over any of Yang Jwing Ming's publications.

:asian:

I was only quoting what I have read from Dr. Yang. That's why I referenced him. Personally, I am no authority on the matter. If Dr. Yang is incorrect, then so be it. I will look into your recommended book above for further reading. Thank you.

 

[Randy Strausbaugh]

An article comparing CMC and Yang styles may be found here.

 

[someguy]

We can discuse if its gung fu or not here
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11606

 

[Karasu Tengu]

My appologies for entering this forum so late. Tai Chi Chuan/Taiqiquan, though a form of boxing, is not Kung/Gung Fu. Many Westerners lump it into that catagory. Just like they lump Japanese empty hand arts into the Karate catagory when many are clearly not just Karate. The bigest difference is that TCC/TQQ focuses on developing one "internal energy" (Chi) in concert with one's physical abilities (techniques). Whereas "Kung/Gung Fu" stresses more physical development of technique. (I've studied White Crane and Dragon's Fist Kung Fu in addition to TCC). The emphasis on Breathing, Balance and Form "Internal" exercises such as Chi Gong and Nei Gong are essential in bringing all of this together.

The purpose of slow movement originally (from my research that is) was to perfectly coordinate the mind, body and spirit. Slow practice of technique develops perfect and efficient movement. Proper breathing allows one to remain centered (calm) in the face of conflict. Together they create powerful combat techniques that are executed with extreme speed, accuracy and penitration. So if you are looking for fast and flashy just take that which you have learned and do it at combat speed. Thats the martial art of it. Oh and don't forget to breath! (a common effect when one speeds things up)

 

[Taiji fan]

Tai Chi Chuan/Taiqiquan, though a form of boxing, is not Kung/Gung Fu.

Taijiquan formerly known as cotton fist boxing among other things does come under the bracket name of kung fu. It doesn't actually matter if the art/style is further classed as internal or external, the aim is the same, to reach a high level of skill through training .....kung fu.....in a martial art.

Whereas "Kung/Gung Fu" stresses more physical development of technique.

Taiji starts with physical development of technique and this remains important throughout the training. A punch is still a punch regardless of whether it is delivered by an internal/external/chinese/japanese/korean etc etc stylist

The purpose of slow movement originally (from my research that is) was to perfectly coordinate the mind, body and spirit. Slow practice of technique develops perfect and efficient movement

very true...which is exactly why it is skill aquired through patience and training.....kung fu.
It would appear that it is a typical weastern approach to consider only hard styles as kung fu........where would you put Xing Yi....

 

[7starmantis]

Its a mater of semantics, why argue over it?

In what your saying, what would you call what I practice? Kung Fu? and what about the Yang Tai Chi my Sifu is going to teach me, is that kung fu too? So when I'm asked at a demonstration or tournement what style I am competing in when its a Tai Chi competition, do I say Kung Fu? Its really kind of stupid, why even argue about it? It doesn't matter, we need something to call my system, so we use Kung Fu, is that so bad?

7sm

 

[Taiji fan]

Its a mater of semantics, why argue over it?

:erg: you are right.......its getting really boring now.....but it is simple......if the standard western term for martial arts from china used is kung fu, then taijiquan comes under that banner......your style of kung fu is still taijiquan.:wink:

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Taiji fan
......your style of kung fu is still taijiquan.:wink:

What? I'm really getting confused, but I hear ya, this is boring now.

7sm

 

[Matt Bernius]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
Anyone ever heard of Erle Montague? I wonder if he fits into this equation?

I was wondering how long this might go before someone brought up Erle. As far as where he fits into the equation, his name usually stirs up more controversy.

What Erle teaches is a Yang variation. It's defintely combat oriented. Plus three's a lot of Dim Mak striking built into what he's doing as well.

I've never had the chance to meet him in person. But I have gotten the chance to learn from one of his students (Jack Davis) on a number of occaisions. Jack's stuff is solid. Also I've had a number of conversations with other people in the "Erle" family on another board.

- Matt

 

[7starmantis]

Erle as in the most dangerous man on earth ?

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
Erle as in the most dangerous man on earth ?

7sm

Sarcasm noted. Have you read the encyclopedia of Dimak that he published? Interesting.

 

[Kodanjaclay]

Ok... as a Taijiquan teacher, And I mean Taijiquan not Tai Cheese, I can say a couple of things definitively. First of Taijiquan is a combat oriented art. Its just that the approach dictated by the classics takes a whole lot of training for it to be Taijiquan as opposed to something else, which may be taiji-esque. Second, Dim Mak is a rather common technique. It was just seriously hyped in the 80's. cavity press is something used in both the healing arts and martial arts, and have been for centuries.

I don't know much about Erle. I can say that I sincerely doubt the assessment of his skill. The most dangerous man on earth is the one that you are facing who is trying to end your life. That is the only man you need concern yourself with at any given time.

I hope this helps.

 

[Matt Bernius]

Originally posted by Kodanjaclay
Second, Dim Mak is a rather common technique. It was just seriously hyped in the 80's. cavity press is something used in both the healing arts and martial arts, and have been for centuries.

I don't know much about Erle. I can say that I sincerely doubt the assessment of his skill.

Erle's good. No doubt about that. His students are good as well. He's never advertised (as far as I know) that he's the deadliest man on Earth.

But he is a character and a tempermental personality. Both of those have helped him get a larger than life reputation.

As far as his approach to Dim Mak, from my understanding it's straight forward and very good. He's doesn't try to mystify it. In fact he's taken Dillman to task on a few occaisions for overhyping it (and in his opinion demonstrating dangerous techniques on people at seminars).

Personally I have a lot of respect for Erle's students. So, at least in my case, that translates to respect for Erle.

- Matt

 

[Makalakumu]

Crap, hit the wrong button.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
I agree with Montaigue taking Dillman to task in practicing some of those light force knockouts. In my opinion, that is very dangerous. In our school, we learn those techniques at high ranks and NEVER use them for show. In fact, my instructor will demonstrate the technique once, in a private class, to show us that they do work and then never again. This demonstration is also done so the healing aspects of Dim-mak can be demonstrated.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by Matt Bernius
Erle's good. No doubt about that. His students are good as well. He's never advertised (as far as I know) that he's the deadliest man on Earth.

But he is a character and a tempermental personality. Both of those have helped him get a larger than life reputation.

That was my bad, when I saw his name I somehow thought we were talking about Count Dante and I posted without checking myself. My mistake, sorry to have posted my sarcasm incorrectly. I don't know why my mind went to this guy, but it just subverted to him.

My appologies,
7sm