4/08/2009 10:41am, #51
4/08/2009 10:51am, #52
B) It appears that you are opposed to a ruleset that improves taiji ability, yet often doesn't look like perfect taiji. What do I mean?
In low-level judo competitions (to run with your example), you see very little good judo. In Olympic competition, you see very little good judo. But, many elite competitors have excellent judo, and it can be seen in randori (sparring) and at shiai (tournament) when they aren't fighting for the achievement of their career. Highlight reels show judo of a simply amazing caliber--absolute perfection of kouchigari, seoinage, tai-otoshi, osotogari and many others.
If judo regulated the lower levels of competition to strongly penalize bad judo, we'd see a decrease in overall judo quality. Good judo is nearly effortless, with perfect timing and application of force--just like taiji. You simply can't mandate good timing.
You seem to want taiji competition to somehow distinguish between knocking someone over with brute force and knocking someone over with pure skill. But mandating pure skill by outlawing force is farcical--it creates situations where properly and skillfully generating force is penalized.
4/08/2009 10:56am, #53
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
The san shou aspect is already there.
It has, and is the US model. You have to stay within the definition of Internal Martial Arts and specifically taijiquan.
A totally seperate conversation, idea for a thread, is the effectiveness of taijiquan, and how we can save this art from relegation to the holy tofu folks while maintaining its true identity (ie - principles).
You just cannot seperate taijiquan from the principles by definition, nor can you seperate it from taoism. It is a martial art that was born of Taoism, its very name taiji quan says so.
4/08/2009 11:02am, #54
Or am I stuffing words down your throat? If so, I apologize.
4/08/2009 11:08am, #55
In China, an intellectual bureaucracy tended to rule. The military caste was often at the bottom of the social heap. A fair number of martial arts emerged from criminal groups, the losers of dynastic struggles, and counterhegemonic populations. Wu de, guess what, reflects an entirely different social milieu and mindset. Specifically, wu de has relatively little to say spiritual or moral virtues, except as regards one's gongfu relations—don't be an ass to your teachers or fellow students. If there is a culture on Earth—"warrior" or otherwise—that valorizes being an ass to the teachers one volunteers to study under I've yet to encounter it.
(Don't accuse me of punting because I don't waste my time linking to, or quoting a bunch of stuff here that you probably wouldn't read. I did that with the principles already. If you are too lazy to do some research on your own, you probably shouldn't follow this thread.)
"Taijiquan uses the practice of push hands to convey the meaning of its applications. Studying push hands, then is learning how to sense energy!"
Ok, there should be no disagreeing here. If there is, then we are not talking about taiji, but another art.
Here is where the Bullshido Brigade comes charging in asserting that the US ruleset does not allow for competition that is vigorous enough.
Ahhhh, but what about the video of Chen Manching. Clearly that was force on force.
For that matter, why on Earth do you think the ability to maintain structure requires no force? No force==no structure. Song does not mean noodle-limp.
4/08/2009 11:14am, #56
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
not quite the conversation
Push Hands is however a competetive event, that battle was already lost before I even got to taiji. This conversation is about which ruleset of push hands is better for taiji and why. I have stated my case, using principles and definition of taijiquan. I certainly could play devils advocate too, but I really believe, if we are going to publicly compete, it should be with a ruleset designed to help better taiji (help more players embody the defining principles of the art).
Feel free to disagree, I know many will, but it should be kept within the accepted definition of taijiquan and push hands objectives.
4/08/2009 11:18am, #57
The actual disagreement is whether US rules as depicted in the "Pushing the Issue" video actually do what you say they do (encourage principles) or do not. Well, I don't think a ruleset that doesn't allow for cai or kao or chin-na is an appropriate expression of taiji. My teachers don't. It appears that most of the people in China don't.
So, why do you, especially since in the Chinese video we showed you, you couldn't spot any violations of principles in the competitive rounds?
Last edited by Rivington; 4/08/2009 11:25am at .
4/08/2009 11:20am, #58
There is no "accepted" definition of Taiji except, within a particular school.
Also, address the videos. Why we keep moving to bushido, principles and rules is beyong me.
4/08/2009 11:26am, #59
Judo, Greco and shuaijiao all start off with beginners clumsily mashing each other, from which they progress to greater skill that converges on the principles. Why do you believe that the same framework can't work for taiji? To put it another way, what makes you think a taiji player can learn to overcome resistence, aggression and strength without that kind of progression?“Most people do not do, but take refuge in theory and talk, thinking that they will become good in this way” -- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, II.4
4/08/2009 11:28am, #60
If push-hands were not competitive, what would it be? How could it still be push-hands, except in a patty-cake, now-it's-my-turn kind of way?
What ruleset would help players exemplify these principles, if not one based on standing grappling where the players knock each other over, and points are awarded for staying up when the opponent goes down? Does it involve muscle relaxants and penalties for making a face other than one of supreme Oneness?
EDIT: To clarify, I asked the original question because it seemed you were suggesting that push-hands was to be a semicooperative in-class drill/exercise wherein one specifically used a strict subset of techniques, and full-contact, fully uncooperative striking, locking and throwing was to be the fight training. This is actually not crazy, IMO--I see parallels to Tim Cartmell's method. It would make push-hands into a freeform apply-the-basics area, not a method of sparring, and would therefore drastically limit its usefulness. I'm not sure how you'd get from there to applying the taiji principles against a fully resisting opponent...
Last edited by 1point2; 4/08/2009 11:34am at .