First Year Training Reflections: Yang Tai Chi

[drewtoby]

Clarification. Honestly, the traditional Korean "one step" protocol isn't followed in class. We mainly do fluid positional/grappling sparring with different goals (I.e. taking opponents back, getting outside the striking pocket, etc.) and analyze what works and doesn't work. Different approach than what I'm used to, so I'm not sure if anyone else has been taught this way in Tai Chi in particular. Seems similar to BJJ or Judo training methodology tbh.



That being said, I also have considered branching out and learning a hybrid or striking art as well, as only advanced students add striking to their sparring, with this definitely being a secondary focus.

 

[isshinryuronin]

.

In others, like Taiji, partner work too early can be counterproductive — because what’s being trained isn’t visible technique, but internal organization.

I don't think I can embrace this idea, though I understand it. Considering the long history of CMA, the notion of internal and external is fairly recent. It's possible that this concept may have been around a longer period of time philosophically, but in an MA context, a short period of time (I have read the earliest reference in an MA context only dates from the 1800's). This concept is found in karate but has much less sway as the Okinawans were less philosophical than the Chinese and their MA was looked at from a simpler practical combat POV.

In my view, the external visible technique is the manifestation of internal concepts. Devoted training of the physical execution, in seeking its perfection, in turn, facilitates/encourages the development of the internal (breathing, flow, ki, etc) in a feedback loop - Training one trains the other.

They feed off each other - easily done as they are simply two sides of the same thing. We can speak of a man and woman (or Oriental and Caucasian) being two different things, or we can speak of them being "people" and in this regard being the same thing.

I think in MA it's beneficial to break down the labels of differentiation and see the commonality and sameness of internal and external. IMO, too much is made of dividing them. Better to view them as simply descriptions of different aspects of the MA gestalt.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Taiji system always try to create a different training method that is different from other MA systems. So far, it has not been proved that the Taiji training method can produce any good Taiji fighters.

Why?

 

[windwalker099]

My first Taiji teacher when I was 7 was a "Taiji for health only" teacher. He was supposed to be a monk. One day I saw him ate a turtle, I then knew he was a fake monk.

In another thread, people talk about how to counter "finger break" and "Devil's hand shake". If you don't train that in class, when and where will you train that?

We seem to have very different experiences regarding Taiji. All the teachers I’ve had emphasized demonstrable usage. My last teacher in Beijing often responded with “try it” — everything was shown hands-on. Some thought he wasn’t teaching, his method was principle-based, not technique-based. He didn't say much,,,if one had a question he would let the person feel the answer...

It sounds like you’re contrasting “narrow” and “wide” training systems. One of my teachers put it this way:

A narrow system has specific responses for specific attacks — lots of techniques. A wide system has fewer techniques but explores the changes within them. Bagua, for example, emphasizes changes. Taiji could be said to be a wide system — it works through simple principles with complex inner changes.

So while your focus is on counters and techniques, mine has been on changing the conditions that allow those techniques to happen in the first place. Just a different way of training.

 

[windwalker099]

I don't think I can embrace this idea, though I understand it. Considering the long history of CMA, the notion of internal and external is fairly recent.

It might be more accurate to say that the distinction between internal and external became more clearly defined in recent times — but the ideas behind internal work have always been part of Chinese martial arts, reflecting the cultural context they arose from.

For example, at one of the first government-sponsored traditional martial arts competitions in Beijing (1952), Chen Fake was invited as a judge. A debate arose over whether his Chen-style Taijiquan even qualified as “Taiji,” since it appeared too external. That controversy shows how the understanding of Taiji — and internal method — was still evolving, even then.

Internal practice concerns how force is organized and expressed. The distinction often lies in whether internal work is used to support the body — as in many “external” systems — or whether the body acts as a conductor for something already internally present, as emphasized in internal styles. The concepts aren’t new; what varies is how each system trains and expresses them.

The training methods lead to different outcomes — many today haven’t had the opportunity to experience the level of skill where these differences become unmistakably clear.

 

[isshinryuronin]

Internal practice concerns how force is organized and expressed. The distinction often lies in whether internal work is used to support the body — as in many “external” systems — or whether the body acts as a conductor for something already internally present, as emphasized in internal styles.

This kind of hits on my main point - both of these situations can co-exist, reinforcing each other. In this we seem to have different takes as my previous post details.

many today haven’t had the opportunity to experience the level of skill where these differences become unmistakably clear.

I agree that many do not have the experience/skill level to see things from an "enlightened" perspective. Again, we differ in that I see the differences becoming less clear the more I advance my understanding. Perhaps our arts just differ in foundation or perhaps at the end of the MA conceptual road, yin becomes yang, and yang becomes yin - so we're both right! We can leave it at that.

 

[Same Trick]

Well...not exactly.

Taijiquan was and is a martial art, and still is if you are lucky enough to find a good, well trained Shifu.

It is considered an internal martial art due to how it is trained. It became focused on energy and relaxation under Mao Zedong, the martial arts were not allowed under Mao. Although this neutering of taijiquan, and many other CMA styles, began to some extent during the Ming Dynasty. But when Taijiquan got to the west in pretty much became a moving meditation, more like Qigong with the martial arts removed.

However you could still get taijiquan with martial arts and everything else intact if your teacher trained in Hong Kong or Taiwan.

However I will say my shigung, (Teacher's Teacher) when asked about breathing, he tended to respond with "Yes you should" Although what he actually said was more like 是的，你应该 (Shì de, nǐ yīnggāi) or possibly 係嘅，你應該 (hai6 ge3， nei5 jing1goi1) He was a Mandarin speaker teaching in Hong Kong (Cantonese).

Per my shifu, who also did not emphasize breathing, he did say it would eventually, naturally switch to reverse breathing...and it did.

I trained traditional Yang for 30 years also did some Chen, dabbled in Wu and Sun.

The “Mao Zedong” thing was just a way for the HK/Taiwan regions CMA to promote themselves

 

[Same Trick]

My shigong, also would answer the question, "what was taijiquan for?" He would answer for health, but he was including in that self-defense. That and he (Tung Ying-Chieh) was a big fan of qinna

and thank you for your post, I suspected that their were those teaching off the radar. Kind highlights the reason for the old Chinese saying; "The nail that stands up gets pounded down"

I thought that was a Japanese saying, but then lots of Japanese stuff hail from China, so could be

 

[Xue Sheng]

I thought that was a Japanese saying, but then lots of Japanese stuff hail from China, so could be

got it from China, never heard it associated with Japan, but could be

 

[Xue Sheng]

The “Mao Zedong” thing was just a way for the HK/Taiwan regions CMA to promote themselves

Yes and no. Mao did suppress a lot of traditional Chinese things, not just martial arts, especially between 1966 and 1976

 

[Xue Sheng]

The “Mao Zedong” thing was just a way for the HK/Taiwan regions CMA to promote themselves

So you only disagree with that and the nail quote, or the entire post you put the disagree on....just curious

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

We seem to have very different experiences regarding Taiji. All the teachers I’ve had emphasized demonstrable usage. My last teacher in Beijing often responded with “try it” — everything was shown hands-on. Some thought he wasn’t teaching, his method was principle-based, not technique-based. He didn't say much,,,if one had a question he would let the person feel the answer...

It sounds like you’re contrasting “narrow” and “wide” training systems. One of my teachers put it this way:

A narrow system has specific responses for specific attacks — lots of techniques. A wide system has fewer techniques but explores the changes within them. Bagua, for example, emphasizes changes. Taiji could be said to be a wide system — it works through simple principles with complex inner changes.

So while your focus is on counters and techniques, mine has been on changing the conditions that allow those techniques to happen in the first place. Just a different way of training.

Good point, I believe both are useful concepts and can be used alternatively or in concert in a harmonious manner. If the opponent is hard one can be soft and the obverse can be true as well. I don’t plan, I adapt.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

All the teachers I’ve had emphasized demonstrable usage.

A teacher demonstrates usage, and a teacher teaches usage are different things.

1. Demonstrate usage - prove the teacher can do it.
2. Teach usage - make sure that students can do it.

We have seen so many videos that a teacher pushes his students around. We have not seen any video that teacher taught student how to push another student around.

Why?

 

[Marsha Larts]

A teacher demonstrates usage, and a teacher teaches usage are different things.

1. Demonstrate usage - prove the teacher can do it.
2. Teach usage - make sure that students can do it.

We have seen so many videos that a teacher pushes his students around. We have not seen any video that teacher taught student how to push another student around.

Why?

Why does it gotta be another student? Why wouldn't the teacher teach their student to push them around? That way, the teacher will always be the student and the students will always be the teacher.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Why does it gotta be another student? Why wouldn't the teacher teach their student to push them around? That way, the teacher will always be the student and the students will always be the teacher.

You are right! We have never seen a Taiji student pushes his Taiji teacher around, or make his Taiji teacher to jump up and down.

Why?

 

[windwalker099]

A teacher demonstrates usage, and a teacher teaches usage are different things.

1. Demonstrate usage - prove the teacher can do it.
2. Teach usage - make sure that students can do it.

We have seen so many videos that a teacher pushes his students around. We have not seen any video that teacher taught student how to push another student around.

Why?

Your teacher taught Taiji, right?

Are there any videos of him being pushed around by his students? If not — why not?
And if so, feel free to share one.

By your own standard, that would be the measure of whether he was truly “teaching usage” — wouldn’t it?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Your teacher taught Taiji, right?

Are there any videos of him being pushed around by his students? If not — why not?
And if so, feel free to share one.

By your own standard, that would be the measure of whether he was truly “teaching usage” — wouldn’t it?

Let's talk about our generation and not our previous generation. There are many things that I don't agree with our previous generation. I came from tradition. But I'm anti-tradition myself.

Here is a public demo video that I throw my student, and also my student throws me.

Here is a video that my student applies a technique on me.

 

[drewtoby]

I don't think I can embrace this idea, though I understand it. Considering the long history of CMA, the notion of internal and external is fairly recent. It's possible that this concept may have been around a longer period of time philosophically, but in an MA context, a short period of time (I have read the earliest reference in an MA context only dates from the 1800's). This concept is found in karate but has much less sway as the Okinawans were less philosophical than the Chinese and their MA was looked at from a simpler practical combat POV.

In my view, the external visible technique is the manifestation of internal concepts. Devoted training of the physical execution, in seeking its perfection, in turn, facilitates/encourages the development of the internal (breathing, flow, ki, etc) in a feedback loop - Training one trains the other.

They feed off each other - easily done as they are simply two sides of the same thing. We can speak of a man and woman (or Oriental and Caucasian) being two different things, or we can speak of them being "people" and in this regard being the same thing.

I think in MA it's beneficial to break down the labels of differentiation and see the commonality and sameness of internal and external. IMO, too much is made of dividing them. Better to view them as simply descriptions of different aspects of the MA gestalt.

Very insightful, I believe my teacher falls into this camp as well. Oftentimes, we do find ourselves using moves based on or derived from our form practice while sparring. Thank you for explaining!

 

[Same Trick]

got it from China, never heard it associated with Japan, but could be

Checked it

So you only disagree with that and the nail quote, or the entire post you put the disagree on....just curious

Not disagreeing, especially not about the “nail getting hammered”,

So you only disagree with that and the nail quote, or the entire post you put the disagree on....just curious

Not disagreeing, especially not about the “nail getting hammered”, that one I only heard about in Japanese contexts, but could be of Confucian origin ?

The cultural revolution 66-76, I don’t believe Mao Zedong was capable in charge of that - but rather the Gang of Four . But yes Mao was still the symbolic leader so it’s easy to point the blame on him.

Yes only those two points I meant to comment on

 

[Xue Sheng]

Checked it

Not disagreeing, especially not about the “nail getting hammered”,

Not disagreeing, especially not about the “nail getting hammered”, that one I only heard about in Japanese contexts, but could be of Confucian origin ?

The cultural revolution 66-76, I don’t believe Mao Zedong was capable in charge of that - but rather the Gang of Four . But yes Mao was still the symbolic leader so it’s easy to point the blame on him.

Yes only those two points I meant to comment on

My wife was there, lived through it in Beijing. Can't argue who did what, other than Premier Zhou Enlai stopped them from trashing the forbidden city