Archive through June 12, 2003

Tim's Discussion Board: Tai Ji Quan : Traditional training: Archive through June 12, 2003
   By Blakeism (Unregistered Guest) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 12:29 am: Edit Post

Tim stated that training in 3 months tai chi or any of the traditional internal styles could produce fighting results yet a poster on http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?s=18e7b72e6bed47c547d53b945 6cecf1f&threadid=22650 states:

"Traditional internal arts training can still be found in the west, but the reason you don't see much of it is thatmost westerners won't put up with the training methodology.

Traditional neijia training requires a lot of standing, and nothing but standing for around 3 years. Traditional teachers will use this to weed out unsincere students, but most importantly, standing and holding postures (wu ji for taiji, san ti shi for xingyi, or in the case of bagua, walking the circle) will build the so-called internal strength.

After about 3 years of standing each posture is taught separately. You would spend a few months on each posture learning how to use it for self-defense from any type of attack.

This effort would take a few years. After you learn each individual posture the teacher shows you the linking moves to make it into a form. Most traditionalists were not into whole forms. They would specialize in just one or two postures their whole lives.

Weapons was advanced training. A lot of nerijia teachers even today won't teach you weapons until you have been doing barehand solo practice for 5 or 6 yaers.

So if you REALLY wan't to practice in the TRADITIONAL manner, start standing for an hour or two a day and in about three years post again and I'll let you know what to work on next!

Ron Panunto"

He also wrote:

"No, traditionally students were not told why they were standing. The "theory" about why standing was good for you was not important. The only important thing was that you stood. Theory and analysis was not productuve, but the actual act of standing or holding a posture or walking the circle produced tangible results.

Traditionally it was considered disrespectful to ask questions of your teacher. You just did or imitated what he did. The student learned experientially by doing, not intellectually by questionong, analyzing, and theorizing.

By the way, I did forget to mention the traditional training sequence for neijia:

Standing (neigong).
Individual Barehand Posture Training, including self-defense applications.
Linked Posture Training (Forms)
Push Hands Training
Saber (broadsword)-easiest short weapon
Staff-easiest long weapon
Sword-difficult short weapon
Spear-difficult long weapon"

So who is right?



   By Blakeism (Unregistered Guest) on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 01:23 am: Edit Post

Another thing he wrote which contradicts with what Tim has been saying is:
"If by sanshou you mean free fighting, it was more or less covered in the posture applications and push hands training. The students also got free fighting experience when their masters were challenged, since the challenger had to work his way up through the student body before the teacher would fight him."

Here is another thing he wrote:
"Well I think that the difference between "traditional" and "modern" is the relationship of the student to the teacher. In traditional schools the master was very selective of his students. He usually only had a few and they were recommended to him by a close friend, family member, or other martial arts master. The prospective student had to undergo the bashi ceremony of swearing allegiance to his master. He then became an "inner door" disciple and was shown most of the training secrets. The best of these students was then selected to be the next lineage holder after the master died. This disciple was shown all of the style's secret training techniques. These disciples typically took care of all the masters needs and treated him like a father. All fellow students were treated like brothers. It was actually an extended family.

Modern, or non-traditional, is where a teacher is willing to accept any student who walks in the door and is willing to fork over $60 a month for training. There is no implied student/teacher loyalty in either direction and the traning is softened to meet the student's needs and to retain students. After a few months the student leaves, declares himself a master and opens his own school."


   By Brian Kennedy on Tuesday, June 10, 2003 - 07:54 am: Edit Post

Actually they are both right. Blakeism, you don't read or think very well. They are addressing two seperate issues:
Issue number one: how long does it take to have some combat ability in a Chinese internal art. Tim says 3 months

Issue number two: how were Chinese martial arts taught in the past. Not very effectively is the answer to that, as Mr. Panunto correctly points out.

Traditional Chinese education methods, be they for academic or physical subjects, leaves a lot to be desired. Take that from someone trying to teach law in Taiwan where--sadly--traditional educational methods are still the norm.

take care,
Brian


   By Shane on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 01:57 am: Edit Post

Blakeism,

Do you intend to sound like an jackhole or does it just read that way? It may be something you should look into if you want to get meaningful answers.

From what I read of Ron Panuto's posts- he seems to have decent points which I think you're misinterpreting by only taking a superficial glance.

And from what I read of Tim's point is that with a good teacher a dedicated student can learn to apply Tai Ji to fighting with only a few months of training. (by the way- last year Tim taught Xing Yi to a student with no prior martial arts experience, and the guy beat a black belt in Kung Fu San Soo during a full contact tournament after having only 3 months of training.)

The posts from Ron Panuto about how the old school very traditional, hard core masters used to make a student repeat a form thousands of times over months or years before moving to the next form... and Tim's post that with a good teacher a dedicated student can learn to apply Tai Ji in fighting are not at all mutually exclusive. (Do you assume that the 'internal' student from 100 years ago would work a day job then meet with his class and simply stand for hours or do a single movement for hours and then go home not doing any thing martial till the next class? Most of them had been studying some sort of martial art since childhood... most of them were interested in martial arts because they fought out of necessity... the teachers taught how- the students had to learn to apply for themselves.)

Having said that- the guys who spend months and years refining single movements are probobly more powerfully rooted in the long run. (but without sparing and learning to apply what he's learning it's wasted)

If you're planning to spend your time pointing out contridictions you find on various web sites- you're going to waste a lot of time.


   By Blakeism (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 04:24 am: Edit Post

"the way- last year Tim taught Xing Yi to a student with no prior martial arts experience, and the guy beat a black belt in Kung Fu San Soo during a full contact tournament after having only 3 months of training"

maybe he had more natural talent, fighting ability, weight/size advantage, and rules favored him over the san soo guy.

"but without sparing and learning to apply what he's learning it's wasted."

According to Ron Panuto they didn't spar. How would training a few months in traditional standing methods be beneficial to fighting? It would probably add 0% to your fighting, if you train thai kixkboxing for 6 months you could already be a good fighter if you spar at least once a week and train daily. And if Tim meant in modern methods training (which he but maybe some others don't teach) you could be proficient in a few months, than why people think masters of old were better, and why if they had to use this stuff for hardcore combat did they waste this time like this, when they could be sparring and training techniques?


   By Blakeism (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 04:27 am: Edit Post

I would also like to add that accoridng to Tim his teachers were bery informal, open minded and down to earth people. But according to Ron traditional teachers were stubborn, hard headed, and it was considered rude to be questioning the teaching or training methods. So were Tim's teachers in Taiwan/mainland not traditional? So what he's training is not traditional internal systems?


   By bypasser (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 05:36 am: Edit Post

Blakeism, wouldn't you agree there are very informal, open minded and down to earth people and very stubborn and hard headed people in this world? Martial art masters are also people, at least that's my experience.. I think you can find examples for both positions, waste of time.


   By Mark Hatfield (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 07:27 am: Edit Post

Blakeism

Standing for even only a few months can be increase ones effectiveness. If blocking, deflecting, striking, etc, this all begins with raising ones arms, any stance training with the arms extended improves that reaction. The leg strength improves one striking power and movement. Balance improves, even much relaxation of unnecessary muscular tension can be acheived in only a few months from stance training. That greatly improves speed and striking energy.


   By another european (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 07:27 am: Edit Post

What's your point blakeism? it seems like you want to argue with people. Many people find arguing a perfectly amusing way to spend their time and I have very little against it. Call it recreational arguing.

On the other hand you could be arguing because you believe in something that you consider important, that you know something or have experience of something that people here seem to contradict. In which case everyone might find the discussion clearer if you simply stated what your point is. Do you know it yourself? It's certainly not clear to me.

If the point your defending is ' if one person is right then the other must be wrong, and I want to know which dammit!' then you've probably been taught too much fundamentalist simplistic thinking of the ' you're either with us or against us ' variety. I suggest you vote in a new president, and go and read about general semantics.

both with you and against you

another European


   By Shane on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 01:57 pm: Edit Post

Blakeism,

I'm going to respond to your post only to provide clarity to others who are reading this thread. From reading your most recent posts (and remembering you are the one who, in a move of unparalleled stupidity, asked Tim if he thought he could beat up one of his favorite and most warmly respected teachers a day after that teacher passed away)- I've decided that you are either irretrievably stupid or simply out to stir the turd because it suits your disfigured personality. -If you feel my presumptions are incorrect- you've got a big apology to make.... not to me.

Regarding the 3 month Xing Yi student who defeated the Kung Fu San Soo teacher. Their weights were evenly matched. They'd agreed to the rules- aside from experience neither had any advantage. It was a fair fight- The Xing Yi student had spent 3 months of focused study and sparing with Tim and applied what he'd learned.
If both fighters had only 3 months of MA training your suggestion of 'more natural ability and fighting ability' might hold water. In this case it does not.

"According to Ron Panuto they didn't spar"
again- I point to your own cursory reading of Ron's posts- yet another sign of your limited intelligence. In Ron's post he clearly details the stages (as he understood them from the old, hard line masters)- the second stage is applications training (cooperative training) and the next stage is push hands he wrote; "free fighting, it was more or less covered in the posture applications and push hands training".
He went on to explain: "They made their living as body guards to the wealthy, as caravan guards, or as soldiers. They were continually being challenged by competing martial artists trying to establish reputations for themselves."

If you still do not get it: Most of the great Internal Martial Arts Masters only accepted students who were already GREAT at the martial art they'd been studying all their lives. The IMA masters took them and showed them a different way to unite their bodies (standing) and use whole body power (internal energy) by focusing on structural alignment and body use (forms). They knew their students were fighting regularly (as Ron stated in the posts you neglected to comprehend; "made their living as body guards to the wealthy, as caravan guards, or as soldiers. They were continually being challenged by competing martial artists trying to establish reputations for themselves")

As to the "old masters being stubborn and hard-headed" - I can't find anywhere where Ron posted that. I could have missed it- but at this point I'll just assume your pea-brain added that in to further confuse yourself.

As for Tim's teachers being open-minded and down to earth- I've met two of them. Very funny, kind, down to earth gentlemen. Tim (and many other folks who've studied in China) say that the bowing and near worship of a teacher seems to be a Western phenomenon. In China their classes were informal. Hours of calisthenics. Hours of forms. Hours of sparing.

Lastly- There are stories like: a famous bodyguard witnessed a great IMA Master in action and went to that teacher and said "I'm impressed by what you do- please teach me to improve my power" and that teacher said "stand like this until you get tired. Come back tomorrow and do it again everyday until I think you are ready to learn more" The IMA Master knows the student is experienced fighting- The student (from experience) knows the IMA master is WAY better than him- why would he question what he's asked to do?

Why, you stupid, arrogant Phuck?


   By Meynard on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 02:32 pm: Edit Post

who's Ron Panunto?


   By Shane on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 02:39 pm: Edit Post

Some guy who's posts on KFO Blakeism misunderstood. (click on the link Blakeism provided at the start of this thread.)

Ron made the mistake of making sense on a KFO thread and now we have to suffer the ramifications because Blakeism's mom let him on her computer again.


   By chris hein on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 03:07 pm: Edit Post

you know when i think about what i like about internal martial arts, it has little to do with china, old people, or who might have done what. Frankly I have no idea what you are talking about, or why it would bother you, if you like it, come do it, if you think it sucks leave it alone. if its' stricty "Traditional" you want, start a chinese reanactment group. You can dress up in chinese cloths, and some one can be the sifu, and he can beat you with a stick, and you can pretend you have great powers. your idea about martial arts is all screwed up! If you want internal martial arts that work, find a teacher who is better then you, and has "been there done that", listen to what he says, if you find out that he's not as good as you thought, leave, if not stay, it's not rocket sciance!!


   By Bob #2 on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 03:23 pm: Edit Post

Since you should mention that Chris. That is exactly what I've done with my school, "Wu Wu School of Traditional Chinese Internal Martial Arts" (WWSTCIMA!)

We dress in traditional chinese garb. All students must address me as LouShir Sifu Bob #2 on the rare occasions when they are permitted to speak. I'm stubborn, hard-headed and often beat them with a stick. The students must do what I tell them when I tell them- no comments, no questions. They are expected to be seen and not heard and will learn quickly that questioning or complaining will quicly result in furious beatings from someone who knows more about fighting than they ever will.

They do treat me like a father figure- cook, clean, wash and iron my clothes and some of the younger girls are even allowed to give me sponge baths and massges. This is the traditional way.

Getting back to basics is what Wu Wu is all about.

Sincerely
Bob #2


   By Blakeism (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 04:42 pm: Edit Post

"Tim (and many other folks who've studied in China) say that the bowing and near worship of a teacher seems to be a Western phenomenon."

This statement contradicts with what Ron Panunto stated about traditional teachers and their training methods. Maybe today teachers in China/Taiwan teach this way but according to him and what I read it was done differently in the past. Open mideness and criticism of teachers training was considered a no no. You could not question what you were learning and had to clean for the teacher/etc. (he was like a father figuare).


   By Dragonprawn on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 05:51 pm: Edit Post

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but that $60 a month sounds real good to me. Where do I sign up?


   By Bob #2 on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 06:28 pm: Edit Post

Blackism,

While I can certainly understand why your mother is so fond of abortion now, I genuinely think you'd be a popular student in my Wu Wu School of Traditional Chinese Internal Martial Arts (WWSTCIMA).

If you want to experience the traditional method of learning the traditional arts- you'll find contridictions extrodinaire under my tooteledge. And I think the two of us could really set a strong example to the rest of the students while you learn to accept contridiction and do my laundry.

I must make you aware that after you agree to become my student- if you ever again use the term "no no" I will break your jaw immediately.

Bob #2


   By Blakeism (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 07:00 pm: Edit Post

bob #2 I would but I think you can't fight your way out of a paper back.


   By another European (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, June 11, 2003 - 07:08 pm: Edit Post

Yes, Blakeism, I'm pretty sure that's recreational arguing. It does create some amusing reactions.

Bob #2 I bet WWSTCIMA is an extremely profitable enterprise. You probably charge more than $60/month.

Do you think I could open a franchise in Europe? We could do a deal where the students have to pay a lot extra for the privilege of being beaten by you twice a year.

If you don't want to come to Europe we could say that I'm channelling the spirit of Lao shr seefoo while i beat them with a special iron reinforced stick and I'll just send you a cheque.

I've got it all figured out


   By Bob #2 on Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 01:52 pm: Edit Post

a paper back? you don't think I can fight my way out of a magazine or a dime store romance novel?

What's the weather like in your world?