What do you think?

http://www.martialtaichi.co.uk/articles/how_taiji_lost_its_quan.php

quote from Martial Tai Chi Association "about us"...
100% Qi-Free

Our own teaching completely rejects the concept of qi, also known as chi, ch'i or ki. Other instructors coming to the MTA should also reject the idea completely. However, on this website there are several articles which specifically deal with the concept as it is so prevalent in mainstream Tai Chi practice. Qi is also dealt with briefly on our "Taiji Concepts" DVD. We have found it necessary to address the issue of qi, because most people in the Tai Chi mainstream are utterly obsessed with it, and we wanted to make our position on it absolutely clear. The concept is at best obsolete and at worst dangerous. Significantly, the notion of qi is simply not true.
...unquote

javascript:emoticon('')
Very Happy
I personally think it's funny!javascript:emoticon('')
Very Happy

Christine I asked thoughts about particular article not "about as" or anything else.

Andrey, I'm sorry, you asked 'what do you think' and put a link to 'Martial Tai Chi Association' writing an article, I didn't know we had only the possibility to think on the article and not on the authors of the article. I will let some other people think.

I don't agree with what she says about Qi and qi gong.
Keep Quan in Tai chi Quan, sure, but leave Qi in qi gong.
Why separate?

Interesting article. I think there are many reasons that "Taiji has lost its quan", especially in America. Over the past several decades, Americans have come to connote martial arts with external hard styles. Those that wanted to practice the fighting aspects of the arts were attracted to these hard styles. Many people, including those in the counter culture, were attracted to Tai Chi because they saw it as meditation in movement, a spiritual way to connect mind & body. Since then, external & internal have attracted participants that are quite different in their orientation. Teachers have adapted their teachings to fit what their students want.

More recently, many students are wanting more from their Tai Chi experience. Some practitioners of hard styles that still want to be involved in the martial arts are being attracted to Tai Chi due to aging & injury issues. They like the softer, meditational and health aspects of Tai Chi, but still retain a desire for self defense. Therefore, some students are looking back to the fighting roots of Tai Chi.

I agree with Alain that both aspects are part of Tai Chi. In our classes with Jesse, our interests seems to run the gamut. We are quite fortunate that Jesse is expansive & open-minded enough to include us all.

BTW, Isabelle, let's also leave the Chi in Tai Chi Quan

Well the article covers the topic how taijiquan lost it's fighting art. I care less who wrote that article and what they think about qi, but for the most part agree with the argument presented.

A lot of people today know taijiquan as a great tool for maintaining and improving health; however, not a lot of people eager to comprehend its martial side leaving taijiquan one sided.

to Isabelle: not sure where you find discussion qi ro qi gong in the article.

to Alain: yes taijiquan has both martial art and health applications, but martial art applications side remains less understood. You cannot really learn how to apply martial art application, but simply watching other people show it to you. You need really practicing it, but as Scott pointed out practice may lead to pain and injuries which some people especially in US have hard time to accept or deal with.


Let me put it in that prospective. I learnt Lun Hu Quan and practiced light contact sparring for while where we would gently hit our opponent and hold back most of the power. It was great way to learn basic, but wrong way to understand what is going to happened true contact fight.
The first eye opener came to me right after I tried full contact fight. To my great disappointment my opponent suppressed me fairly quickly. For the most part I discovered that most of my light contact skills either inefficient
or require major improvement. I thought I had some gong fu, but in reality I didn't.

Now going back to taijiquan let me asked do you really
consider that you can apply taijiquan as martial art for the selfdefense?
If so have you ever tested it in true full contact fight or similar environment ? Now he is an interesting situation - a lot of full contact fights may actually be very bad for your health, but lack of it could be similarly bad for your self defense skill. So I think that true ground lay somewhere in the middle in a balance of both.

P.S. Here is a little off topic, but still a point related to the same discussion. Do you appreciate when your opponent during training fight or push hands come to you with full force? My answer is it depends.. Before I didn't really appreciate it because I had to learn new skills, and if my opponent gets to the competition mood and start using his force I'm unable to learn. In contrast, right I made a little progress and I actually appreciate when my opponent tries to use his force because it gives me ability to test my skills and make necessarily adjustment. Actually I think it's even better when somebody deliberately uses the force to let his/her partner to practice how to deal with it (with the only condition if partner knows how to deal with force)

Andrey

I would say that the loss of QUAN from TAIJIQUAN is/was a marketing tool to market TAIJI to those who saw no reason to learn QUAN. Unless I am mistaken, around the time Yang took taijiquan to Beijing, firearms were becoming the new standard. A lifetime of martial arts training meant nothing against an opponent who could raise a gun to target and pull its trigger.

Still. I personally find great value in training to fight. Safely learning techniques and practicing movements to defend yourself. Push hands from fixed step to free form is an excellent tool that too many people overlook or improperly use.

It makes a LOT of sense to train to fight without (intentionally) hurting others. Aikido, Judo, and Taijiquan IMO provide excellent and underused avenues for this. Some people think that training full contact is key. There may be some value in that, but consider this.

We train with firearms, but not with live ammunition against human targets. Why not?

You suggest that men should go full contact against other men... but I dont fight fair. I fully intend to trap, gouge, hyperextend, and break when possible. How can I train that without going to jail? If I could, would I want to?

Again, I see value in training for open handed martial ability. But in todays world, if its really going to get nasty, all of those ruined joints and bones and martial ability will not help you against a bladed weapon or firearm, unless you are using same.

Promote self defense for the purposes of training, both physical and mental. But IMO the Cowboy tough talk should be spared.

IMO Taijiquan with NO martial intent in training, is better labled Tai Chi, or in some cases, Dance.

But reason, and moderation should be employed when considering how far to take this fight training.

Andrey

But thats rather, MY point. Which is that if you arent trying to break limbs, gouge eyes, or break vertebrae, then you ARENT training to fight as you might in a self-defense situation.

So then if you are going to hold back, then you may as well hold back in a manner that allows everyone to train with minimal injury. I find Push-Hands in open form with free sparring to be just such an opportunity.

IMO when people talk about training past that, they arent just training, but rather, brawling. People looking to exercise violence upon others.

Not at all what I train MA for.
So I try to find others that train with similar intentions. Healthier bodies get to train (and live) longer. People who want to break bones and joints in the name of "training" usually bring their broken bodies back to softer training styles once they get older anyway.