Is taijiquan a "real" martial art?

[Garry Williams]

First, for the record, my intent here is not to start a flame war,
and, yes, I *have* read the FAQ, and specifically, the groaner FAQ.
:-) For the context of this post, please keep in mind the definition
of the term "martial art" from the FAQ as:

The first definition is a generic one, which defines a "Martial Art"
as the study of any kind of combat and/or self-defense techniques.

My question comes from a conversation with a (mainland) Chinese friend
that I have been practicing taiji with for 4 or 5 years (we were both
in some of the same classes with the same teacher for a couple of
years). One day last week I used "taijiquan" and "martial art" in the
same sentence, and he immediately stated that taijiquan is not a
martial art. I looked at him, puzzled, and said that yes, it is. He
replied, no, it is just *based* on a martial art. I said, no, it's a
real, functional, martial art. He looked away with a pained expression
on his face, as if he were embarrassed that his American friend was so
ignorant and naive, and said he didn't want to argue about it, and
changed the subject. I let it drop.

My question is, is there some sense in which my Chinese buddy is
correct? I am aware that mainland Chinese martial arts sports
competition may often be more for pretty than for function, but that
doesn't mean that there aren't teachers who instruct students in real
techniques and principles passed down in traditional manner. Every
Monday night I go to a push-hands class, in addition to my regular
form class, and if what we're learning there isn't "real" martial art,
I'm hornswaggled to figure out what it is.

Does anyone have an idea of what my friend was trying to tell me? I
don't want to get into an argument with him, but it seems "obvious" to
me that taiji is more than just loosely based on a martial art.

Thanks,

Garry

[Zebee Johnstone]

In rec.martial-arts.moderated on Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:03:00 UTC

Post by Garry Williams
martial art. I looked at him, puzzled, and said that yes, it is. He
replied, no, it is just *based* on a martial art. I said, no, it's a
real, functional, martial art. He looked away with a pained expression
on his face, as if he were embarrassed that his American friend was so
ignorant and naive, and said he didn't want to argue about it, and
changed the subject. I let it drop.

Well.. the Chinese bod I did it with was quite certain it was a martial
art, had been when he was a boy, had been when his father was a boy,

As far as I could tell, he felt the martial uses and the meditative uses
were all part of a whole, and of a way to see the world.

Zebee

[Ted & Cheryl]

Chen style tai chi (considered the original tai chi style) originated as a
martial art -- the health benefits were a pleasant secondary note.

Subsequent iterations of taichi have, I believe, bled the martial out of
the style (and of course poor practioners w/no sense of root or fajing
or..).

The Yang style, for example, uses much broader gestures and tends to focus
less on martial applications.

The Chinese government sought to formalize tai chi instruction by coming
up with a set of (25/38/?) moves that could be taught quickly and in a
uniform fashion. In this process, martial was lost completely. Of course,
you could still take an individual move and use it in a martial fashion,
but an artist could do that with anything, as he could turn anything into
a weapon.

Anyone who has witnessed chen style's cannon fist form cannot say it is
not a martial art.

Post by Zebee Johnstone
In rec.martial-arts.moderated on Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:03:00 UTC

Post by Garry Williams
martial art. I looked at him, puzzled, and said that yes, it is. He
replied, no, it is just *based* on a martial art. I said, no, it's a
real, functional, martial art. He looked away with a pained expression
on his face, as if he were embarrassed that his American friend was so
ignorant and naive, and said he didn't want to argue about it, and
changed the subject. I let it drop.

Well.. the Chinese bod I did it with was quite certain it was a martial
art, had been when he was a boy, had been when his father was a boy,
As far as I could tell, he felt the martial uses and the meditative uses
were all part of a whole, and of a way to see the world.
Zebee

[Reid Kaplan]

Post by Ted & Cheryl
Chen style tai chi (considered the original tai chi style) originated as a
martial art -- the health benefits were a pleasant secondary note.
Subsequent iterations of taichi have, I believe, bled the martial out of
the style (and of course poor practioners w/no sense of root or fajing
or..).
The Yang style, for example, uses much broader gestures and tends to focus
less on martial applications.
The Chinese government sought to formalize tai chi instruction by coming
up with a set of (25/38/?) moves that could be taught quickly and in a
uniform fashion. In this process, martial was lost completely. Of course,
you could still take an individual move and use it in a martial fashion,
but an artist could do that with anything, as he could turn anything into
a weapon.
Anyone who has witnessed chen style's cannon fist form cannot say it is
not a martial art.

Post by Zebee Johnstone
In rec.martial-arts.moderated on Fri, 24 Sep 2004 00:03:00 UTC

Post by Garry Williams
martial art. I looked at him, puzzled, and said that yes, it is. He
replied, no, it is just *based* on a martial art. I said, no, it's a
real, functional, martial art. He looked away with a pained expression
on his face, as if he were embarrassed that his American friend was so
ignorant and naive, and said he didn't want to argue about it, and
changed the subject. I let it drop.

Well.. the Chinese bod I did it with was quite certain it was a martial
art, had been when he was a boy, had been when his father was a boy,
As far as I could tell, he felt the martial uses and the meditative uses
were all part of a whole, and of a way to see the world.
Zebee

If I may contribute...

I have been studying Northern Wu Tai ji for about 2 years; about an
hour or 2 each day. First as a health measure, but my teacher and my
teacher's teacher's teacher, from Beijing, Liu lian shi, have always
emphasized "applications" as the primary logic for a posture or a
portion of a posture. The Form is a template from which one may draw
about a 3 second sequence of actions to respond to an opponent's
initial action. "The opponent moves and you get there first." The
movement of my body is (or should be - since I am 65) totally
conditioned to respond to certain motions I see in another. Northern
Wu is the latest of the styles and draws on much that has gone before.
I could not do Chen; it is for teenagers with much flexibility and no
damage that my years have brought to my joints. Nonetheless, I have
witnessed, to my skeptical amazement, how Liu lian shi - who is at
least 72, and his students can respond to attacks. After putting down
his attacker, Liu lian shi usually give a short comment on the health
benefits received.

I have yet to master the open hand form (some of its components, at
least, although Liu lian shi has said that I "move well"), yet I am
interested in progressing to the jian sword form, and I, if not
despised for doing merely a "soft martial art", might ask some
questions about acquiring a jian or two.

...Reid

[John Smith]

Yes.
It is.
However, most people don't stick with it long enough
to reap those benefits.

It takes a long time

Post by Garry Williams
First, for the record, my intent here is not to start a flame war,
and, yes, I *have* read the FAQ, and specifically, the groaner FAQ.
:-) For the context of this post, please keep in mind the definition
The first definition is a generic one, which defines a "Martial Art"
as the study of any kind of combat and/or self-defense techniques.
My question comes from a conversation with a (mainland) Chinese friend
that I have been practicing taiji with for 4 or 5 years (we were both
in some of the same classes with the same teacher for a couple of
years). One day last week I used "taijiquan" and "martial art" in the
same sentence, and he immediately stated that taijiquan is not a
martial art. I looked at him, puzzled, and said that yes, it is. He
replied, no, it is just *based* on a martial art. I said, no, it's a
real, functional, martial art. He looked away with a pained expression
on his face, as if he were embarrassed that his American friend was so
ignorant and naive, and said he didn't want to argue about it, and
changed the subject. I let it drop.
My question is, is there some sense in which my Chinese buddy is
correct? I am aware that mainland Chinese martial arts sports
competition may often be more for pretty than for function, but that
doesn't mean that there aren't teachers who instruct students in real
techniques and principles passed down in traditional manner. Every
Monday night I go to a push-hands class, in addition to my regular
form class, and if what we're learning there isn't "real" martial art,
I'm hornswaggled to figure out what it is.
Does anyone have an idea of what my friend was trying to tell me? I
don't want to get into an argument with him, but it seems "obvious" to
me that taiji is more than just loosely based on a martial art.
Thanks,
Garry