Dear Sirs,
I have of late been arguing for restraint in application, to wit: do the least possible damage when defending oneself.
However, when I point out that Yang Lu Chan demonstrated defeating a younger, stronger, faster man without harming him, I am given two counter examples: One, that Yang Lu Chan supposedly killed someone before coming to Beijing, and two, Yang Ban Hou supposedly killed 100 men.
I have always thought that although Yang Style Tai Chi Chuan includes lethal techniques, these are taught to prevent them being accidently applied. However those who disagree with me claim that Yang Style incorporates no thought of the well being of whomever one is defending against.
Would you, please, clarify the matter? Thank you.
Respectfully,
David J Salvia
[This message has been edited by DavidJ (edited 07-18-2003).]
Restraint versus none
I have no idea about the Yang family history regarding if any of the Yangs killed people, I can't answer those questions for you.
I can only say that when engaged in actual combat, a real fight with an unknown opponent who has attacked me or one of my family members, I must consider that opponent as being temporarily insane, therefore it is in my best interests to take him out as quickly and effectively as possible.
I can have no consideration for his well being, as he is demonstrably less than interested in mine. As I have not attacked anyone physically in over twenty five years I can say unequivocably that I am not an aggressive person who craves combat, however when it is forced upon me I must have the mindset that my opponent is trying to kill me or a loved one, therefor any techniques I employ are valid and will be used in defense of myself or others.
I do and will try to use the least lethal technique employable under the circumstances and as I practice TCC combat how much damage my opponent will receive depends almost entirely on how much force he is using against me.
In other words when I borrow an opponents force to give back to him, if that force is lethal in origination my opponent will have given up his right to live.
Being a moral person, if I am able under the circumstances to not kill my opponent I will certainly do so, however in actual combat I will also tend towards maiming and disabling techniques so as to bring my time under the influence of a temporarily insane attacker to an end in the shortest time possible.
This is my opinion only, borrowing quite a bit heavily from codes of conduct I have learned at five different schools of martial art and my own personal code of ethics. Please do not construe this in any way as being put forward as the code to follow in your own life or your own combat situations. Each person has to make up his own mind about how to respond to a potentially lethal opponent. I have chosen to use the minimum of violence necessary whenever possible, but if that is not possible I have decided up front to take a temporarily insane attacker out any way I can. If that results in his death then that is on his own head, not mine, due to the way I respond in combat situations by using only the amount of force he is lending me to defend myself.
One of the nicest things about using TCC in combat is that your opponent pre-determins how lethal the combat situation you are in will be. If he does not use lethal force, he will most likely live to see the morning, if he does attempt to apply lethal force then I sincerely hope he is at peace with his gods before he attacks me or mine.
I can only say that when engaged in actual combat, a real fight with an unknown opponent who has attacked me or one of my family members, I must consider that opponent as being temporarily insane, therefore it is in my best interests to take him out as quickly and effectively as possible.
I can have no consideration for his well being, as he is demonstrably less than interested in mine. As I have not attacked anyone physically in over twenty five years I can say unequivocably that I am not an aggressive person who craves combat, however when it is forced upon me I must have the mindset that my opponent is trying to kill me or a loved one, therefor any techniques I employ are valid and will be used in defense of myself or others.
I do and will try to use the least lethal technique employable under the circumstances and as I practice TCC combat how much damage my opponent will receive depends almost entirely on how much force he is using against me.
In other words when I borrow an opponents force to give back to him, if that force is lethal in origination my opponent will have given up his right to live.
Being a moral person, if I am able under the circumstances to not kill my opponent I will certainly do so, however in actual combat I will also tend towards maiming and disabling techniques so as to bring my time under the influence of a temporarily insane attacker to an end in the shortest time possible.
This is my opinion only, borrowing quite a bit heavily from codes of conduct I have learned at five different schools of martial art and my own personal code of ethics. Please do not construe this in any way as being put forward as the code to follow in your own life or your own combat situations. Each person has to make up his own mind about how to respond to a potentially lethal opponent. I have chosen to use the minimum of violence necessary whenever possible, but if that is not possible I have decided up front to take a temporarily insane attacker out any way I can. If that results in his death then that is on his own head, not mine, due to the way I respond in combat situations by using only the amount of force he is lending me to defend myself.
One of the nicest things about using TCC in combat is that your opponent pre-determins how lethal the combat situation you are in will be. If he does not use lethal force, he will most likely live to see the morning, if he does attempt to apply lethal force then I sincerely hope he is at peace with his gods before he attacks me or mine.
Hi David,
I can only speak for myself. I tend to lean towards the personal principles you have described; however, I see mixed evidence in the history of Yang Style.
There are many legends about the early generations of the Yang Family. Many seem difficult to take at face value. I personally believe it is often pointless to try to sort fact from fiction, given the time that has elapsed from the alleged incidents and the difficulties of translation across languages, dialects, and massive cultural change in China. There is almost no one today who would be willing to accept uncritically many of the cultural norms of eighteenth century China (or of the U.S. of the eighteenth century, for that matter). How are we to judge the people who lived through such times?
If we look at the saber form, it is hard to believe that most of the techniques were meant to be exclusively non-lethal. In the era before modern medicine, many injuries we think of as not being particular serious nowadays were often lethal in the past. Even something as “simple” as a dislocated shoulder was something that could not be repaired and could cause someone to lose a profession and might reduce a family to near starvation. On the other hand, if we look at the hand form, it is seems to me that there are many sequences where the choreographed responses are calibrated to match the level of likely provocation. Potentially lethal techniques seem much less prominent than in other martial arts I have seen.
Many people seem to judge martial arts with a lens that presupposes duels, personal challenges, or self-defense in the proverbial dark alley. I do not believe that such a view fits well with the history of Taijiquan or the environment of Hebei Province that produced it. For instance, I do not think it makes much sense to learn to fight with a spear in order to defend oneself in such circumstances. I do not mean that Taijiquan cannot be used in such circumstances, but just that I do not think Taijiquan can be best understand if one only sees it with a view to such contexts.
All in all, I think that Taijiquan, and Yang Style in particular, seems to have focused more quickly on self-cultivation than other martial arts. I also think that the heavy emphasis on Daoist and Confucian concepts, such as “following the other,” imply a specific moral framework and a level of restraint, up to a point. Beyond this point, however, I do not think that Yang Style has a particularly pacifist view of martial applications.
Take care,
Audi
I can only speak for myself. I tend to lean towards the personal principles you have described; however, I see mixed evidence in the history of Yang Style.
There are many legends about the early generations of the Yang Family. Many seem difficult to take at face value. I personally believe it is often pointless to try to sort fact from fiction, given the time that has elapsed from the alleged incidents and the difficulties of translation across languages, dialects, and massive cultural change in China. There is almost no one today who would be willing to accept uncritically many of the cultural norms of eighteenth century China (or of the U.S. of the eighteenth century, for that matter). How are we to judge the people who lived through such times?
If we look at the saber form, it is hard to believe that most of the techniques were meant to be exclusively non-lethal. In the era before modern medicine, many injuries we think of as not being particular serious nowadays were often lethal in the past. Even something as “simple” as a dislocated shoulder was something that could not be repaired and could cause someone to lose a profession and might reduce a family to near starvation. On the other hand, if we look at the hand form, it is seems to me that there are many sequences where the choreographed responses are calibrated to match the level of likely provocation. Potentially lethal techniques seem much less prominent than in other martial arts I have seen.
Many people seem to judge martial arts with a lens that presupposes duels, personal challenges, or self-defense in the proverbial dark alley. I do not believe that such a view fits well with the history of Taijiquan or the environment of Hebei Province that produced it. For instance, I do not think it makes much sense to learn to fight with a spear in order to defend oneself in such circumstances. I do not mean that Taijiquan cannot be used in such circumstances, but just that I do not think Taijiquan can be best understand if one only sees it with a view to such contexts.
All in all, I think that Taijiquan, and Yang Style in particular, seems to have focused more quickly on self-cultivation than other martial arts. I also think that the heavy emphasis on Daoist and Confucian concepts, such as “following the other,” imply a specific moral framework and a level of restraint, up to a point. Beyond this point, however, I do not think that Yang Style has a particularly pacifist view of martial applications.
Take care,
Audi
Audi and all,
I will get off on some tangents here so forgive me.
I would agree with most of Wushuer's points, esp. about taiji being concerned with ending a confrontation in the least possible amount of time. This the basic strategy of taiji as a martial art.
In the time of Yang LuChan (and before), "self cultivation" in the martial arts was not the big thing, or rather, had a different focus. Not all had the desire to become monks. I would guess that self-cultivation would have more to do with personal "honor" than becoming "one with the Dao". Of course this could change, and often would, as one matured. This would be true then as it is today. In the days of ChengFu the focus changed quite a bit. Some say that this was a "marketing" shift. Some say it was "evolution" or changing times. I tend to think that it was all of the above. Was this a good thing? I don't really know. I guess it depends on what is looking for.
"Lethal/nonlethal" or "injurious/non injurious" application was determined by the conflict. In those challenges Audi refers to, a person with "good sense" is not going to injure the opponent unless necessary. And here I am talking about Non hostile challenges---just someone testing his art. And as Wushuer says, much of that CAN be determined by the amount of force that is delivered to you to "use". Were these "challenges" (hostile or not) or "personal duels" common with taiji practioners As the books and movies say concerning other martial arts---those of Japan or China? I expect it to have been so for awhile anyway. How else did taiji get it's reputation? Why was YLC and his sons asked to teach the imperial guards and the elite? And how did it lose that same reputation? While your "hard styles" continued much of that activity in the back alleys, in the "dojo", and tournaments etc., tai ji "evolved" past that, It was a certain outcome due to aspects of philosphy coupled with "modern" thinking and concerns. Also, why are there not taiji tournaments as one finds in Hard style Kung Fu? Because due to it's nature , the likelihood of serious injuries is very, very great especially with any but the higher level practioners of the art. When such events do take place, the huge number of necessary rules take away most of the martial effectiveness, or rather, the "nature of the art". The attacks on pressure points and the joints are gone. You end up with push hands for the most part with MAYBE some throws. A training routine, not a fuctioning complete martial art. Over time, as taiji became tested less and less it became a joke to the "hard" stylists, thinking push hands was what we call "fighting". I think fewer and fewer, even in the taiji community, understand just how devastating this art is and was designed to be. I find people tend to have rather "romantic" ideas concerning taiji. what is was and is now.
That Daoist and Confucian ideas/ideals (this NOT directed at you Audi) are the overriding principles (and basis) of taiji and the "soft styles". It is true, that they emphasize some aspects strongly, but in the area of actual philosophy taiji is not influenced more than anything else in Chinese culture. The big three Daoism, Buddhism, and "confusionism" are the basis of the entire culture, taiji as well. I would say that in taiji one may find a fuller expression of Chinese culture than one may find in Hung gar for instance. But the aims are the same---to overcome one's opponent.
In a "real" confrontation a successful technique used in the "challenge" that ended with no injurious results would be followed up with a technique that would end it right then and there, or used differently initially. To end a confrontation one must make certain that the other is unwilling or unable to continue. Physical pain is the method applied in the martial arts. There is no getting around that fact. The idea of fustrating the attacker to the extent that he "gives up" is a relatively modern invention in my opinion. It can work if the attacker is not very serious and/or has some sense of self preservation. With those lacking those attributes, say someone on PCP, "fustration" will have the opposite effect. One always has to remember that the longer conflict continues (even verbally) there is the increasing likelihood that you will get hurt, that you will come out on the "losing" side....no matter how good you think you may be, no matter if "right" is on your side. The whole theory of taiji combat seeks to avoid that. He moves, I get there first---it is over.
I would tend to disagree also with the opinion that duels etc were not, nor really the case back in those days (mentioned above). The one thing I know about the Martial arts, esp the "hard styles" is that proving oneself is a big thing with many, many individuals. Some just wish to see how they are progressing, but many (I have met many) just want to show others what tough guys they are. It was no different then as it is now. And in a time when the martial arts had more relative "value", I expect there was even more of it, and maybe even more of the later type. Who would the martial arts attract back then, and why? "I" would not probably have gone to Yang Lu Chan, or a Shaolin teacher for "enlightenment" as my primary reason. How did Yang Luchan promote his "new" "style"? This was shown by defeating opponents. One can't prove your style by having board breaking demos in dangerous times. In some of these I expect there were injuries in others, there were not. One should also remember the "turf wars" between the martial arts schools in the early seventies (late sixties?) in Chicago. Who's school or style was "best", competition for students,.... It didn't just happen in the Kung Fu flicks. I also know from persons in China that in some of the rural areas the thieves and "bandits" carry on just the same as they did in the "good old days" as pverty has not gone away. Life is still "cheap" for many. Those that are preyed upon have no problem in using lethal force either. The local cadre is very capable of overlooking the demise of some neighborhood thug. Yang LuChans home turf (Kwang Ping prefecture) is still known to some, for people who can "fight", not for their high level martial art "skills".
I think it is "best" to understand taiji as a fighting art, designed first and foremost as such. Then to understand it's evolution. So many have lost sight of what it is. Some even think that it never was a martial art. I wonder how one puts "intent" into ones actions if it is only a tool of self-cultivation or achieve better health. Audi, I know that you do not hold this veiw, but some do. I also think that more and more will come to hold that opinion---esp in the Yang style as it becomes more diluted in some schools, with "new agey" mumbo jumbo and extreme pacifism. Don't get me wrong, I am more or less a "pacifist". But as Wushuer says--the one that messes with me and mine (or a defenseless stranger for that matter) had better be "at peace with his gods". Being amplified for effect to some degree, as I know "Wushuer" to be a man of reason and principle---one could envision a serious attack ending with broken bones and maybe some maiming....and I will do my best to make sure it was not me. I know that the "local cadres" here and now, frown highly upon lethal encounters. The factor we face today is if the attacker lives, he'll sue. You had better have witnesses if you ever have to really use taijiquan. It is a sad world.
Work hard!
Michael
I expect this is going to need some editing........
I will get off on some tangents here so forgive me.
I would agree with most of Wushuer's points, esp. about taiji being concerned with ending a confrontation in the least possible amount of time. This the basic strategy of taiji as a martial art.
In the time of Yang LuChan (and before), "self cultivation" in the martial arts was not the big thing, or rather, had a different focus. Not all had the desire to become monks. I would guess that self-cultivation would have more to do with personal "honor" than becoming "one with the Dao". Of course this could change, and often would, as one matured. This would be true then as it is today. In the days of ChengFu the focus changed quite a bit. Some say that this was a "marketing" shift. Some say it was "evolution" or changing times. I tend to think that it was all of the above. Was this a good thing? I don't really know. I guess it depends on what is looking for.
"Lethal/nonlethal" or "injurious/non injurious" application was determined by the conflict. In those challenges Audi refers to, a person with "good sense" is not going to injure the opponent unless necessary. And here I am talking about Non hostile challenges---just someone testing his art. And as Wushuer says, much of that CAN be determined by the amount of force that is delivered to you to "use". Were these "challenges" (hostile or not) or "personal duels" common with taiji practioners As the books and movies say concerning other martial arts---those of Japan or China? I expect it to have been so for awhile anyway. How else did taiji get it's reputation? Why was YLC and his sons asked to teach the imperial guards and the elite? And how did it lose that same reputation? While your "hard styles" continued much of that activity in the back alleys, in the "dojo", and tournaments etc., tai ji "evolved" past that, It was a certain outcome due to aspects of philosphy coupled with "modern" thinking and concerns. Also, why are there not taiji tournaments as one finds in Hard style Kung Fu? Because due to it's nature , the likelihood of serious injuries is very, very great especially with any but the higher level practioners of the art. When such events do take place, the huge number of necessary rules take away most of the martial effectiveness, or rather, the "nature of the art". The attacks on pressure points and the joints are gone. You end up with push hands for the most part with MAYBE some throws. A training routine, not a fuctioning complete martial art. Over time, as taiji became tested less and less it became a joke to the "hard" stylists, thinking push hands was what we call "fighting". I think fewer and fewer, even in the taiji community, understand just how devastating this art is and was designed to be. I find people tend to have rather "romantic" ideas concerning taiji. what is was and is now.
That Daoist and Confucian ideas/ideals (this NOT directed at you Audi) are the overriding principles (and basis) of taiji and the "soft styles". It is true, that they emphasize some aspects strongly, but in the area of actual philosophy taiji is not influenced more than anything else in Chinese culture. The big three Daoism, Buddhism, and "confusionism" are the basis of the entire culture, taiji as well. I would say that in taiji one may find a fuller expression of Chinese culture than one may find in Hung gar for instance. But the aims are the same---to overcome one's opponent.
In a "real" confrontation a successful technique used in the "challenge" that ended with no injurious results would be followed up with a technique that would end it right then and there, or used differently initially. To end a confrontation one must make certain that the other is unwilling or unable to continue. Physical pain is the method applied in the martial arts. There is no getting around that fact. The idea of fustrating the attacker to the extent that he "gives up" is a relatively modern invention in my opinion. It can work if the attacker is not very serious and/or has some sense of self preservation. With those lacking those attributes, say someone on PCP, "fustration" will have the opposite effect. One always has to remember that the longer conflict continues (even verbally) there is the increasing likelihood that you will get hurt, that you will come out on the "losing" side....no matter how good you think you may be, no matter if "right" is on your side. The whole theory of taiji combat seeks to avoid that. He moves, I get there first---it is over.
I would tend to disagree also with the opinion that duels etc were not, nor really the case back in those days (mentioned above). The one thing I know about the Martial arts, esp the "hard styles" is that proving oneself is a big thing with many, many individuals. Some just wish to see how they are progressing, but many (I have met many) just want to show others what tough guys they are. It was no different then as it is now. And in a time when the martial arts had more relative "value", I expect there was even more of it, and maybe even more of the later type. Who would the martial arts attract back then, and why? "I" would not probably have gone to Yang Lu Chan, or a Shaolin teacher for "enlightenment" as my primary reason. How did Yang Luchan promote his "new" "style"? This was shown by defeating opponents. One can't prove your style by having board breaking demos in dangerous times. In some of these I expect there were injuries in others, there were not. One should also remember the "turf wars" between the martial arts schools in the early seventies (late sixties?) in Chicago. Who's school or style was "best", competition for students,.... It didn't just happen in the Kung Fu flicks. I also know from persons in China that in some of the rural areas the thieves and "bandits" carry on just the same as they did in the "good old days" as pverty has not gone away. Life is still "cheap" for many. Those that are preyed upon have no problem in using lethal force either. The local cadre is very capable of overlooking the demise of some neighborhood thug. Yang LuChans home turf (Kwang Ping prefecture) is still known to some, for people who can "fight", not for their high level martial art "skills".
I think it is "best" to understand taiji as a fighting art, designed first and foremost as such. Then to understand it's evolution. So many have lost sight of what it is. Some even think that it never was a martial art. I wonder how one puts "intent" into ones actions if it is only a tool of self-cultivation or achieve better health. Audi, I know that you do not hold this veiw, but some do. I also think that more and more will come to hold that opinion---esp in the Yang style as it becomes more diluted in some schools, with "new agey" mumbo jumbo and extreme pacifism. Don't get me wrong, I am more or less a "pacifist". But as Wushuer says--the one that messes with me and mine (or a defenseless stranger for that matter) had better be "at peace with his gods". Being amplified for effect to some degree, as I know "Wushuer" to be a man of reason and principle---one could envision a serious attack ending with broken bones and maybe some maiming....and I will do my best to make sure it was not me. I know that the "local cadres" here and now, frown highly upon lethal encounters. The factor we face today is if the attacker lives, he'll sue. You had better have witnesses if you ever have to really use taijiquan. It is a sad world.
Work hard!
Michael
I expect this is going to need some editing........
What Audi says about the saber forms lethality rung a bell with an old memory of mine that may help bring some perspective to this discussion. It certainly put it in my head that what we are doing when we practice TCC IS an extremely effective, potentially lethal to our opponent, form of martial art.
One of my Sifu's was fond of yelling out "This aint no quilting class and that thing in your hand aint no sewing needle! Swing that sword like you mean it." during our classes. I liked his approach.
Same instructor was demonstrating the Wu style broadsword form (they use a Manchu broadsword, not a saber, these swords are very large, very heavy and will cut you in two without even slowing down) and we were practicing a move that swings the blade from behind you to in front of you in a wide, sweeping, two handed arc (blow to the neck), which is then followed by a seemingly out of place front kick with your left leg while you pull the sword back towards you with your right hand and push a bit forward with your left.
He was going around the room giving corrections and the one he kept making on almost every student was to "not stop at your center with the blade, keep going a bit past your center using all the force". He kept having to say this over and over again, constantly moving our sword points a bit more to the left, until he finally stopped the class and asked this question.
"Why do you suppose you don't stop this sweep at your center point but past it a bit?"
No one answered, we were all looking blankly at each other.
He finally said, "It's so your sword doesn't get stuck in his neck or, if you miss, his shoulder or his head. If you go past the center point you'll take his head clean off instead of getting it stuck there. OK? Got it now?".
A few people went "EWWW!" or something like that.
He looked around and said, "OK, I'll ask the next question then. Why is there a forward kick then a push after this move?"
Again blank, questioning looks.
"It's so if your sword DOES get caught in him, you can kick him off of it and move on to your next opponent. You push a bit with your left palm so if his body is still on your sword he won't fall on you when you pull it out."
That right there, more than ANY other lesson I ever had, told me VERY clearly that what we are doing can be a very deadly thing.
Sober up people, this IS a martial art, like it or not and if you are training properly and doing this right you are learning to kill people if they force you to. You can kill using "raise hands" if you do it properly, you don't need a sword.
We are training to defend ourselves against attackers who wish to do us harm, not sew quilts.
That there is a health benefit from this is a fantastic, if not very surprising when you think about it, side benefit.
As you practice remember this one thing, we are not sewing quilts.
Learn it, live it, come to grips with it.
That's not to say anyone should run amok after they learn TCC, but the nice thing about TCC is that you really CAN'T run amok if you do it right.
TCC is purely defensive, as I learned it. If you are using your own force against an opponent in anger, you're not doing TCC you're doing something else entirely. So there is that built in safeguard of the art.
Sifu used to say, "If you're learning this with the intention of learning to kill people, I can save you a lot of time, effort and money. Buy a gun."
Michael,
I'm glad hard stylists think pushing hands, and TCC in general for that matter, is a joke.
Why? Because it's not.
Pushing hands is the gateway to freestyle sparring with TCC, probably also considered a joke, and the single best way I know to learn to read your opponent. Once you've learned to freestyle spar you will find the "martial" to this art and from there you need not fear the hard stylists any longer.
Hard stylists can laugh all they'd like at push hands, I don't mind. Doing push hands taught me how to defend against their hard style attacks, rendering them ineffective.
From personal experience I can tell you that hard stylists get SO upset when their hard style fails them against techniques I learned doing push hands.
Let 'em laugh. It's good for them.
Just my other two cents on this subject.
One of my Sifu's was fond of yelling out "This aint no quilting class and that thing in your hand aint no sewing needle! Swing that sword like you mean it." during our classes. I liked his approach.
Same instructor was demonstrating the Wu style broadsword form (they use a Manchu broadsword, not a saber, these swords are very large, very heavy and will cut you in two without even slowing down) and we were practicing a move that swings the blade from behind you to in front of you in a wide, sweeping, two handed arc (blow to the neck), which is then followed by a seemingly out of place front kick with your left leg while you pull the sword back towards you with your right hand and push a bit forward with your left.
He was going around the room giving corrections and the one he kept making on almost every student was to "not stop at your center with the blade, keep going a bit past your center using all the force". He kept having to say this over and over again, constantly moving our sword points a bit more to the left, until he finally stopped the class and asked this question.
"Why do you suppose you don't stop this sweep at your center point but past it a bit?"
No one answered, we were all looking blankly at each other.
He finally said, "It's so your sword doesn't get stuck in his neck or, if you miss, his shoulder or his head. If you go past the center point you'll take his head clean off instead of getting it stuck there. OK? Got it now?".
A few people went "EWWW!" or something like that.
He looked around and said, "OK, I'll ask the next question then. Why is there a forward kick then a push after this move?"
Again blank, questioning looks.
"It's so if your sword DOES get caught in him, you can kick him off of it and move on to your next opponent. You push a bit with your left palm so if his body is still on your sword he won't fall on you when you pull it out."
That right there, more than ANY other lesson I ever had, told me VERY clearly that what we are doing can be a very deadly thing.
Sober up people, this IS a martial art, like it or not and if you are training properly and doing this right you are learning to kill people if they force you to. You can kill using "raise hands" if you do it properly, you don't need a sword.
We are training to defend ourselves against attackers who wish to do us harm, not sew quilts.
That there is a health benefit from this is a fantastic, if not very surprising when you think about it, side benefit.
As you practice remember this one thing, we are not sewing quilts.
Learn it, live it, come to grips with it.
That's not to say anyone should run amok after they learn TCC, but the nice thing about TCC is that you really CAN'T run amok if you do it right.
TCC is purely defensive, as I learned it. If you are using your own force against an opponent in anger, you're not doing TCC you're doing something else entirely. So there is that built in safeguard of the art.
Sifu used to say, "If you're learning this with the intention of learning to kill people, I can save you a lot of time, effort and money. Buy a gun."
Michael,
I'm glad hard stylists think pushing hands, and TCC in general for that matter, is a joke.
Why? Because it's not.
Pushing hands is the gateway to freestyle sparring with TCC, probably also considered a joke, and the single best way I know to learn to read your opponent. Once you've learned to freestyle spar you will find the "martial" to this art and from there you need not fear the hard stylists any longer.
Hard stylists can laugh all they'd like at push hands, I don't mind. Doing push hands taught me how to defend against their hard style attacks, rendering them ineffective.
From personal experience I can tell you that hard stylists get SO upset when their hard style fails them against techniques I learned doing push hands.
Let 'em laugh. It's good for them.
Just my other two cents on this subject.
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Greetings Everyone,
I have only tried pushing hands a few times, it's not in my curriculum yet, but I am looking forward to learning how to 'Push Hands'.
Wushuer, you reminded me of one of the reasons I was inspired to take up Taijiquan in the first place. I was doing Kung Fu at the time, and was not terribly interested in changing, until I saw a movie(dont' laugh, I will.
) There was an old,very frail looking, light as a feather Master using some type of martial art I had never seen before, and it was really smooth...One opponent would attack with a tremendous amount of force, and this master made a tiny rotation, grasped his wrist gently and proceeded to launch said opponent across the room. A tiny duck, a tiny turn, really no visible effort, and executed in a very cool, calm manner. The efficiency of the whole process impressed me greatly. I wanted to be able to do the same. I like the idea of only using the opponents force against them.
I don't think other Eras can be compared. They had to fight daily, for their lives, life was 'survival of the fittest' etc...and I personally have no idea what that must have been like.
Just my thought on the subject.
Wushuer, I was one of those people(when I first joined) who would have gone EWWWWW!, but I am past that now...Gross, but it didn't bother me much. Then again, I had never watched any martial arts movies before joining Kung Fu. I guess I am becoming desensitized. Then again, how would you feel about doing that yourself, for real, and what would be the psychological effects which followed,what would it do to one's health, self-defense or not?
P.S. If I ever had to drive a spear into someones head, I would let him keep the spear...
[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 08-21-2003).]
I have only tried pushing hands a few times, it's not in my curriculum yet, but I am looking forward to learning how to 'Push Hands'.
Wushuer, you reminded me of one of the reasons I was inspired to take up Taijiquan in the first place. I was doing Kung Fu at the time, and was not terribly interested in changing, until I saw a movie(dont' laugh, I will.
) There was an old,very frail looking, light as a feather Master using some type of martial art I had never seen before, and it was really smooth...One opponent would attack with a tremendous amount of force, and this master made a tiny rotation, grasped his wrist gently and proceeded to launch said opponent across the room. A tiny duck, a tiny turn, really no visible effort, and executed in a very cool, calm manner. The efficiency of the whole process impressed me greatly. I wanted to be able to do the same. I like the idea of only using the opponents force against them.I don't think other Eras can be compared. They had to fight daily, for their lives, life was 'survival of the fittest' etc...and I personally have no idea what that must have been like.
Just my thought on the subject.
Wushuer, I was one of those people(when I first joined) who would have gone EWWWWW!, but I am past that now...Gross, but it didn't bother me much. Then again, I had never watched any martial arts movies before joining Kung Fu. I guess I am becoming desensitized. Then again, how would you feel about doing that yourself, for real, and what would be the psychological effects which followed,what would it do to one's health, self-defense or not?
P.S. If I ever had to drive a spear into someones head, I would let him keep the spear...
[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 08-21-2003).]
Psalchemist,
I have not had to chop into anyone with my sword or my spear, but I have had to stab someone with a knife once.
It was before my TCC training, I was about nineteen years old and was practicing Tae Kwon Do at that time. My car had broken down and I had to walk home from where I left it as it was very early in the morning (about 3 a.m., I was coming home from work) so I couldn't call anyone and it was only about a mile and a half home.
There was a considerable shortcut through a city park that I opted for, cut the walk down by about a quarter of a mile.
As I was walking through the very dark, tree filled park I had my hand on the hilt of my belt knife. Remember, I lived in Detroit... that should explain why I had my hand on my knife to anyone who's ever been there.
I felt rather than heard or saw movement from behind me. I turned, spiked (TKD verbiage for grounded) and set as I'd been taught, and whipped out my belt knife for good measure. I saw a dark mass in front of me and its arms were up over its head and those arms were moving forward and downward in a wide arc, right towards my head with something held in those hands.
As trained, I stepped inside the arc to get inside the "kill radius" of whatever weapon he was bringing to bear on me (turned out to be a plain old, large stick) and at the same time I drove my knife right into my opponents stomach, twisted it in a circle and pulled it back out. Again, as trained.
My opponent fell back, screaming, dropped his stick and grabbed his stomach. He was out of the fight, but his buddy was not.
Another person was coming at me out of the trees, so I turned to face him as well, he too was carrying a large stick.
He was more interested in his buddy than in me though, he stood over him holding that stick and yelling profanities, basically calling me a white male with questionable lineage who had just killed his friend.
He was right on at least two of those counts, because it all ended up with his friend not dying, so I didn't see fit to respond.
I left, there was no more trouble from my new friends about that.
I called the cops when I got home and they came with me to the park. There was a lot of blood on the ground where it all happened but no sign of my new acquaintences.
Ended up finding out later that the guy had gone to the ER and was going to be OK. They had to sew his stomach closed, but that's the breaks when you try to kill someone at night in a dark city park.
Don't play if you don't want to pay, is all I can say to that.
What did that do to me psychologically? It made me happy that I was able to defend myself.
I would think the better person to ask that question of would be the one who did all the bleeding. I'd bet HE got quite a psychological effect out of it. Hope it helped him to realise that mugging people probably isn't a lifelong career choice if you want that lifetime to be a long one.
Would I do it again? In less than a heartbeats time if necessary.
Do I regret it? Not for one moment. My opponent chose the altercation, not me. What would I regret?
What effect did it have on my health? A big one, I stayed just as healthy as I was before it happened. How unhealthy would it be for me if I'd been hit over the head with a big stick? What else were those two clowns planning on doing to me once I was dead or unconscious? How healthy would that have been?
I think it was much more healthy, for me, to do as I did and defend myself. It was viscious, it was ruthless, it was bloody and I ended up quite healthy afterwards.
Under no circumstances should you leave your spear in your opponent after you stab him. You need that spear to defend yourself against the friends and family that are most likely going to come after you for killing him. If you leave your spear in him, then one of those jokers may decide to use your own spear to kill you with.
If I'm going to die, I at least don't want it to be on my own spear.
I recommend you pull it back out and leave forthwith.
I have not had to chop into anyone with my sword or my spear, but I have had to stab someone with a knife once.
It was before my TCC training, I was about nineteen years old and was practicing Tae Kwon Do at that time. My car had broken down and I had to walk home from where I left it as it was very early in the morning (about 3 a.m., I was coming home from work) so I couldn't call anyone and it was only about a mile and a half home.
There was a considerable shortcut through a city park that I opted for, cut the walk down by about a quarter of a mile.
As I was walking through the very dark, tree filled park I had my hand on the hilt of my belt knife. Remember, I lived in Detroit... that should explain why I had my hand on my knife to anyone who's ever been there.
I felt rather than heard or saw movement from behind me. I turned, spiked (TKD verbiage for grounded) and set as I'd been taught, and whipped out my belt knife for good measure. I saw a dark mass in front of me and its arms were up over its head and those arms were moving forward and downward in a wide arc, right towards my head with something held in those hands.
As trained, I stepped inside the arc to get inside the "kill radius" of whatever weapon he was bringing to bear on me (turned out to be a plain old, large stick) and at the same time I drove my knife right into my opponents stomach, twisted it in a circle and pulled it back out. Again, as trained.
My opponent fell back, screaming, dropped his stick and grabbed his stomach. He was out of the fight, but his buddy was not.
Another person was coming at me out of the trees, so I turned to face him as well, he too was carrying a large stick.
He was more interested in his buddy than in me though, he stood over him holding that stick and yelling profanities, basically calling me a white male with questionable lineage who had just killed his friend.
He was right on at least two of those counts, because it all ended up with his friend not dying, so I didn't see fit to respond.
I left, there was no more trouble from my new friends about that.
I called the cops when I got home and they came with me to the park. There was a lot of blood on the ground where it all happened but no sign of my new acquaintences.
Ended up finding out later that the guy had gone to the ER and was going to be OK. They had to sew his stomach closed, but that's the breaks when you try to kill someone at night in a dark city park.
Don't play if you don't want to pay, is all I can say to that.
What did that do to me psychologically? It made me happy that I was able to defend myself.
I would think the better person to ask that question of would be the one who did all the bleeding. I'd bet HE got quite a psychological effect out of it. Hope it helped him to realise that mugging people probably isn't a lifelong career choice if you want that lifetime to be a long one.
Would I do it again? In less than a heartbeats time if necessary.
Do I regret it? Not for one moment. My opponent chose the altercation, not me. What would I regret?
What effect did it have on my health? A big one, I stayed just as healthy as I was before it happened. How unhealthy would it be for me if I'd been hit over the head with a big stick? What else were those two clowns planning on doing to me once I was dead or unconscious? How healthy would that have been?
I think it was much more healthy, for me, to do as I did and defend myself. It was viscious, it was ruthless, it was bloody and I ended up quite healthy afterwards.
Under no circumstances should you leave your spear in your opponent after you stab him. You need that spear to defend yourself against the friends and family that are most likely going to come after you for killing him. If you leave your spear in him, then one of those jokers may decide to use your own spear to kill you with.
If I'm going to die, I at least don't want it to be on my own spear.
I recommend you pull it back out and leave forthwith.
Psalchemist,
It's only my opinion, but I have always felt that until you learn to push hands you won't ever really "get" TCC. When I began to push hands I found out that I had NO idea what I was really doing. None.
I thought I was quite the accomplished TCC guy until the first time I crossed hands with my Sifu.
THAT was an eye opener unlike anything else you can imagine.
I found out I had no clue, none, zilch, zip, nada, about what true TCC was. This is where TCC gets martial, this is where you learn and then prove that you do indeed understand the art.
Just one persons opinion, but I feel that until you've actually accepted and succesfully redirected incoming energy from an opponent using the principals of TCC you are simply dancing, not doing TCC.
Push hands will teach you how to stand, how to turn, how to accept and redirect energy from your opponent, how to learn to read your opponent, to use Nian, Zhan, Lian and Sui (the four basic push hands and fighting skills of TCC) effectively.
In other word, it's the bomb for learning the actual combat skills in TCC.
Don't know how it works in YCF circles, but in the WTCCA that I learned in you are not considered a "practicioner" until you can demonstrate that you can actually use the combat skills of TCC effectively against an opponent. We used push hands and free style sparring to demonstrate these skills.
First you learn to understand yourself (form training, meditation, chi-kung, silk reeling), then you learn to understand your opponent (push hands, sparring). Once you've learned to understand both you are then, and only then, practicing actual TCC techniques.
You will learn skills in push hands that you will then take back to your form training, thus enhancing your knowledge of self. You will then gain a better understanding of the forms, what they actually are meant to do, which skill you will then bring back with you to push hands and sparring, enhancing your abilities there.
The two forms of practice, push hands and form practice, are complimentary. You really need both to reach that elusive place called TCC.
[This message has been edited by Wushuer (edited 08-22-2003).]
It's only my opinion, but I have always felt that until you learn to push hands you won't ever really "get" TCC. When I began to push hands I found out that I had NO idea what I was really doing. None.
I thought I was quite the accomplished TCC guy until the first time I crossed hands with my Sifu.
THAT was an eye opener unlike anything else you can imagine.
I found out I had no clue, none, zilch, zip, nada, about what true TCC was. This is where TCC gets martial, this is where you learn and then prove that you do indeed understand the art.
Just one persons opinion, but I feel that until you've actually accepted and succesfully redirected incoming energy from an opponent using the principals of TCC you are simply dancing, not doing TCC.
Push hands will teach you how to stand, how to turn, how to accept and redirect energy from your opponent, how to learn to read your opponent, to use Nian, Zhan, Lian and Sui (the four basic push hands and fighting skills of TCC) effectively.
In other word, it's the bomb for learning the actual combat skills in TCC.
Don't know how it works in YCF circles, but in the WTCCA that I learned in you are not considered a "practicioner" until you can demonstrate that you can actually use the combat skills of TCC effectively against an opponent. We used push hands and free style sparring to demonstrate these skills.
First you learn to understand yourself (form training, meditation, chi-kung, silk reeling), then you learn to understand your opponent (push hands, sparring). Once you've learned to understand both you are then, and only then, practicing actual TCC techniques.
You will learn skills in push hands that you will then take back to your form training, thus enhancing your knowledge of self. You will then gain a better understanding of the forms, what they actually are meant to do, which skill you will then bring back with you to push hands and sparring, enhancing your abilities there.
The two forms of practice, push hands and form practice, are complimentary. You really need both to reach that elusive place called TCC.
[This message has been edited by Wushuer (edited 08-22-2003).]
Michael,
Hopefully your friend learned that he needed to learn TCC so he could learn to do that too.
As I was taught: "The more you know, the more you know you don't know".
I have learned just enough to learn I don't know enough. As long as I stay in that frame of mind, I should not lose TCC again. I'm about most of the way back to where I was on the path to TCC. I'm happy there for now, but have much farther to go.
As for hard stylists take on TCC push hands, I have had more than one hard style guy offer to push hands with me.
I LOVE those opportunities.
They are always so embarressed when they can't effectively accept and redirect even the simplest energy. Their style of martial art doesn't work that way. They meet force with force, I meet force with acceptance and redirection.
They are like a bull on steroids tied to a steel pole set in concrete, I am like a gate on a hinge whose post cannot be seen or felt and moves on a whim at my direction.
They shove and push and bully, but all they do is turn around my center as I neutralize and roll back with no apparent effort.
They get angry and began to bellow and gasp for breath as they attack and attack with greater force, I laugh and breathe with ease as I ward off, roll back, press or push.
They simply don't know what to make of the Nian I use, their root is shaking and thier balance is gone.
In other words, it's a lot of fun teaching hard stylists true internal art.
Why do hard style schools laugh at push hands? Because MOST people who push hands aren't pushing hands. They are doing an elaborate two person dance which is about as close to true push hands as most TCC instructors are to actually knowing TCC.
However, there are enough of us out there that DO know how to apply the thirteen postures, eight gates and four skills to real combat that every once in a while the laughter turns into, "Wow! How did you do that?".
Hopefully your friend learned that he needed to learn TCC so he could learn to do that too.
As I was taught: "The more you know, the more you know you don't know".
I have learned just enough to learn I don't know enough. As long as I stay in that frame of mind, I should not lose TCC again. I'm about most of the way back to where I was on the path to TCC. I'm happy there for now, but have much farther to go.
As for hard stylists take on TCC push hands, I have had more than one hard style guy offer to push hands with me.
I LOVE those opportunities.
They are always so embarressed when they can't effectively accept and redirect even the simplest energy. Their style of martial art doesn't work that way. They meet force with force, I meet force with acceptance and redirection.
They are like a bull on steroids tied to a steel pole set in concrete, I am like a gate on a hinge whose post cannot be seen or felt and moves on a whim at my direction.
They shove and push and bully, but all they do is turn around my center as I neutralize and roll back with no apparent effort.
They get angry and began to bellow and gasp for breath as they attack and attack with greater force, I laugh and breathe with ease as I ward off, roll back, press or push.
They simply don't know what to make of the Nian I use, their root is shaking and thier balance is gone.
In other words, it's a lot of fun teaching hard stylists true internal art.
Why do hard style schools laugh at push hands? Because MOST people who push hands aren't pushing hands. They are doing an elaborate two person dance which is about as close to true push hands as most TCC instructors are to actually knowing TCC.
However, there are enough of us out there that DO know how to apply the thirteen postures, eight gates and four skills to real combat that every once in a while the laughter turns into, "Wow! How did you do that?".
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Greetings Wushuer,
I will accept your comments and advice on the subject of pushing hands and lethal combat without argument.
I have never had to defend myself physically against an opponent, so really wouldn't be able to base any comments on any personal experience.
I guess I would defend myself as best I could too.
Thanks for the advice, I may need it someday.
I especially was enlightened by the portion about retaining the weapon for secondary attackers. Always better to be forewarned and prepared.
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
I will accept your comments and advice on the subject of pushing hands and lethal combat without argument.
I have never had to defend myself physically against an opponent, so really wouldn't be able to base any comments on any personal experience.
I guess I would defend myself as best I could too.
Thanks for the advice, I may need it someday.
I especially was enlightened by the portion about retaining the weapon for secondary attackers. Always better to be forewarned and prepared.
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
I'm an old Boy Scout. "Be prepared" is etched onto the inside of my eyelids.
You are very lucky not to have had to defend yourself. It must be a nice place that you live in.
I grew up practically right on that now famous 8 Mile Road. That should give you a good idea of how often I had to defend myself. If you've never been there, I highly recommend that you don't go.
That may help explain why I have such an interest in the more "hands on" side of TCC. I was learing it as a martial art for self defense, not as a way to "improve" myself or get healthier. I was, still am, mostly interested strictly in the practical applications of TCC.
In other words, show me how it works, don't tell me how it SHOULD work. I think I liked WTCCA for just that reason. When I had questions the answers were almost inevitably along the lines of "Here, let me show you." I learned a lot of martial application, not so much theory.
Probably why I am sometimes confused by the theory I read. A lot of it just isn't "practical".
[This message has been edited by Wushuer (edited 08-28-2003).]
You are very lucky not to have had to defend yourself. It must be a nice place that you live in.
I grew up practically right on that now famous 8 Mile Road. That should give you a good idea of how often I had to defend myself. If you've never been there, I highly recommend that you don't go.
That may help explain why I have such an interest in the more "hands on" side of TCC. I was learing it as a martial art for self defense, not as a way to "improve" myself or get healthier. I was, still am, mostly interested strictly in the practical applications of TCC.
In other words, show me how it works, don't tell me how it SHOULD work. I think I liked WTCCA for just that reason. When I had questions the answers were almost inevitably along the lines of "Here, let me show you." I learned a lot of martial application, not so much theory.
Probably why I am sometimes confused by the theory I read. A lot of it just isn't "practical".
[This message has been edited by Wushuer (edited 08-28-2003).]
Hi Guys,
The responses you've given me mirror the responses elsewhere, basically "I won't seek to do any serious damage unless I have to, and if someone's trying to kill me all bets are off."
This is understandable, and the law actually reflects this.
I have a few comments about the responses.
"Using the other's energy against them" and "using as much energy as is used against me" are not necessarily the same thing. The first leads to the opponent shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak, the second, unfortunately adopted by groups, can lead to endless retaliation.
Audi, your points are well taken. It is hard to judge what attitudes were during those times. Perhaps with this is mind Yang Lu Chan's demonstration may be placed in the context of a changing time. I think his willingness to teach the bodyguards of the despised Manchu throne was, in itself, very interesting.
I think that the Shaolin, for example, had several opportunities to teach the ruling class, and they got out of it as cleanly as they could. I think this is behind the "Chang Sang-Fung at Wudang" legend. But my question is, was YLC trying to turn the royal court towards less lethal responses, was he just showing off, was he showing a preference for ending violence without violence, or was it something else? I think it's quite possible that all of these apply, but I don't know.
It is my opinion that Tai Chi Chuan techiniques are potentially as lethal or more lethal than what is taught in other arts, especially since it contains training that can make seemingly innocuous moves lethal, but that it also teaches better control from the very beginning.
IMO the amount of force you use should be a choice not a pre-programmed habit.
I am a little dismayed that my questions, about Yang Lu Chan, Yang Ban Hou, and the general attitude towards restaint, remain unanswered. I had hoped that a Yang Family member would answer them, but it seems, after a month and a half, that it isn't happening.
Regards,
David J
[This message has been edited by DavidJ (edited 09-05-2003).]
The responses you've given me mirror the responses elsewhere, basically "I won't seek to do any serious damage unless I have to, and if someone's trying to kill me all bets are off."
This is understandable, and the law actually reflects this.
I have a few comments about the responses.
"Using the other's energy against them" and "using as much energy as is used against me" are not necessarily the same thing. The first leads to the opponent shooting themselves in the foot, so to speak, the second, unfortunately adopted by groups, can lead to endless retaliation.
Audi, your points are well taken. It is hard to judge what attitudes were during those times. Perhaps with this is mind Yang Lu Chan's demonstration may be placed in the context of a changing time. I think his willingness to teach the bodyguards of the despised Manchu throne was, in itself, very interesting.
I think that the Shaolin, for example, had several opportunities to teach the ruling class, and they got out of it as cleanly as they could. I think this is behind the "Chang Sang-Fung at Wudang" legend. But my question is, was YLC trying to turn the royal court towards less lethal responses, was he just showing off, was he showing a preference for ending violence without violence, or was it something else? I think it's quite possible that all of these apply, but I don't know.
It is my opinion that Tai Chi Chuan techiniques are potentially as lethal or more lethal than what is taught in other arts, especially since it contains training that can make seemingly innocuous moves lethal, but that it also teaches better control from the very beginning.
IMO the amount of force you use should be a choice not a pre-programmed habit.
I am a little dismayed that my questions, about Yang Lu Chan, Yang Ban Hou, and the general attitude towards restaint, remain unanswered. I had hoped that a Yang Family member would answer them, but it seems, after a month and a half, that it isn't happening.
Regards,
David J
[This message has been edited by DavidJ (edited 09-05-2003).]
-
JerryKarin
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 7:01 am
- Contact: