No, my point is Perfect is a dumb word. Precise is better IMO. That's all I'm saying.
Originally Posted by Jack Rusher
If we could talk to mifune he would most likely tell us of all the flaws in that video. No, I don't see them but, I bet he would.
So, this post hasn't gone very far...hmmmmm, wonder why?
so much hate
Wow, so much hate, I can see why you might want to smash people.
Originally Posted by Kintanon
Of course, I personally believe the word "Art" in Martial Art makes it more than fighting. Otherwise, wouldn't we save our breath and just say fighting.
Even a quick check of Wikipedia finds this:
"Martial arts are systems of codified practices and traditions of training for combat. While they may be studied for various reasons, martial arts share a single objective: to physically defeat other persons and to defend oneself or others from physical threat. In addition, some martial arts are linked to beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism or Shinto while others follow a particular code of honour. Many arts are also practised competitively, most commonly as combat sports, but may also take the form of dance."
Webster defines it as: any of several arts of combat and self defense (as karate and judo) that are widely practiced as sport
Hmmm, wonder why none of them use your definition, guess "you are smarter" than everyone else.
I am definitely not enamored with demo-taiji. It has to work.
Originally Posted by 1point2
In the mis-quoted conversation, I was pointing out that in a competetive environment the point system should be designed to reward "good" behavior as defined by the "art" that it is a competition for.
Knowing about taiji, I don't feel that the chinese system encourages good taiji, it rewards actions that are clearly in violation of the parameters defining taijiquan. These parameters are the principles.
Mr. Kagan could not/would not even discuss the defining principles, rather simply asking for video. The funny thing is he in the discussion provided video links that did the same thing, he just did not understand what he was looking at.
Often fights are life or death for artists that I know, LE and Military.
I don't think I once said MMA is horrible, just that it trains for specific uses just as all arts.
Originally Posted by It is Fake
I certainly won't debate the way most Taiji looks today. That is part of my issue.
I agree, the taiji principles were written for contact use, that is how I read them and use them.
Okay, I'll bite: what principles of taiji do you think are missing in the most rigorous of Chinese tuishou competitions?
Because jagoffs like you have contaminted the idea of Martial Arts with eastern spritualism and mysticism. Because eastern culture has a strong spiritual component in their daily lives the bring that to everything they do. Idiots like you conflate that with the requirement that there be a spiritual component to those activities. That's simply not the case.
Your symantic debate also falls flat quickly as Sun Tzu's famous text is titled The Art of War, but no one would ever think that fandancing is an appropriate activity to win a war. The word ART in the phrase Martial Art is a synonym for SKILL. Martial Arts are the Skills of Combat. They should provide you with the tools you need to fight. That is all there is to it. Once those things exist in the art then if you want to add on spiritual hocus pocus that's your business. But a Martial Art must AT LEAST teach you how to fight or it is not a Martial Art, it's just Art.
Taijirichm: first off, Welcome. You are in for a fun ride. I give you props for cowboying up to my invite.
In particular, this one:
Originally Posted by Rivington
YouTube - TaiChi 太極推手比賽
Or rather, in what way do Chinese tuishou competitions stray outside the parameters you see as defining taijiquan?
Originally Posted by Rivington
What could conceivably fall within those parameters and remain vigorous?