I see this a lot: someone sees something that they haven’t seen before so they automatically dismiss it or claim that it’s polluted by another style. This happens a lot with the versions of Chen style that we have here in Taiwan. It doesn’t always look exactly like what is expected, so it is considered wrong.
Beginners who are only familiar with how their teacher and branch do things often will see other people who prqctice differently as being wrong. The problem is frame of reference.
It’s rare to bump into someone that really understands why their own style trains in the manner that it does. This takes a while to figure out and may require much research. One of the reasons that I like watching vids of other people practicing is that I gain experience by looking at how and why other people do what they do and then I compare it to what I do. Doing this kind of research has led me to believe that different groups are stressing different things at times, and they have different stances, etc. but they can reach their goals regardless of the different methods.
That’s not to say that some things aren’t wrong. It’s just that they need to be viewed in the proper frame of reference. What is the practicioner trying to achieve? What are the goals of training at the level that the person is at? What are the different methods that could be used?
These questions are important, but fully answering them would require familiarity with different lineages and knowledge of how they train. As I said, in-depth knowledge of one training method is hard enough to come by, let alone knowledge of different training methods.
My advice is always for beginners to start by being a bit fanatical about training a particular training method that they have reason to believe will work. However, this fanaticism refers to TRAINING, not criticisizing others who don’t train that method. Unfortunately, that is rarely found.
But after that initial training period is over and the result is largely acquired, the practicioner can benefit from looking around at what others are doing. Research will usually show that other methods work just as well as long as they are seriously trained. That’s the key.
So one person does a horse stance with certain requirements, and another branch does it differently. Both may be correct as long as they are producing what they claim (soundness for you philosophy buffs out there).
With this in mind, we should all probably expand our frame of reference when given the chance.
7 responses so far ↓
1 baichi // Jan 20, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I agree largely with what you said. There are too many factors to consider for anyone to make absoulute statements. I mean, if someone sais his training methods are really good, the logical question should be “good for what?”. Goals are different, and so should be the ways to achieve them. When you talk to martial artists, everyone argues from his point of view and completely forgets that there may be people looking for completely different things. In fact, there cannot possibly be a real and wrong way to practice martial arts, even if you leave out the different goals. If there was a real way, it would mean that there is some sort of “state” to achieve for everyone, and as soon as you reached it you are a fighter/invincible/enlightened? How is that even possible in an endavour that always involves at least two people (fighting without an opponent doesn’t make much sense, eh?).
On the other hand, even if it is all about skill and the training methods that allow you to develop skill, you cannot give up terms and names completely. Just because someone has great fighting skill, it is not legitimate to call his training methods Taijiquan. Obviously there are a lot of different interpretations of Taijiquan (or any other training method), and it is certainly difficult to say where a certain method stops to belong to the historical school of martial art called Taijiquan. But complete arbitrary-ty does not help anyone. The way I see it, the discussion about Taiwan and mainland Chen suffers is plagued by the common idea that only the orthodox training method is useful, while everything else is completely futile. I have no doubt that martial arts clans usually make sure that their heirs are the most proficient in their training methods. And if you perceive the situation of Chen-style in terms of orthodoxy, you have to say that the orthodox methods are those of the family (by definition of the term orthodoxy). But none of the above mentioned things means that other forms of Chen-style are useless. It is typical for many martial artists to perceive everything in extremes - if it is not the most traditional, old, orthodox, best martial art in the world, it becomes useless… considering how many practioners of Taijiquan in the world nevery achieve any form of reliable skill, I think we should be first concerned with wether a method is actually effective (as in having desirable effects) for our goals, and maybe only then think about the historical dimension of tradition and orthodoxy.
Just some random thoughts…
2 Hermann Bohn // Jan 21, 2007 at 7:49 am
Very nice thoughts, indeed.
Even I myself try to persue ‘complexer’ goals, they have changed with the years. Close to 50, applications or their effectivness are not as important anymore, but the search for inner principles.
So I wonder how indoors, with the obligation to transmit the art, can refuse to teach beginners or to work with ‘once a week people’. They all have their own agenda and who knows whether they never achieve any form of reliable skill, a skill to stay healthy or social or mentally sharp?
Though nowadays we westerners give it all lots of thoughts, I’m not so sure that we can find the effetive method for our goals.
There still aren’t so much masters out there, are there?
3 Chad // Jan 22, 2007 at 3:53 am
Orthodox: from greek ortho (straight, right, correct) and doxa (belief, opinion)
Orthodoxy does not foster the lifeof an art. Too often it becomes stale and tepid. In martial art, the idea is ridiculous. Everyones body is different, as is their mind. There is no “right” opinion by the very essence of the word opinion. There is only bio-mechanically sound. Any fighter you will meet, will have this above an average person. If the technique is bio-mechanically sound, it is “correct” and works. if not…..ouch.
When you watch two people actually fighting, you cannot tell who there teacher is. If the are really brawling, there will be no decerable style. Its like acting: many methods to have the same effect. But it ultimately comes down to the practioner.
Styles and methods are great organizational devices that collect and codefy lots of techniques into a learnable system. No one system is going to have it all, it will always be shaded by the likes and needs of the teacher or student.
I like Yang style taiji, Cheng style Bagua, ditang and various other forms of training. I spar mainly with Hapkido (my sparring partner) but have sparred with BJJ, Akido, Karate, and various other chinese arts. Sometimes I come out on top, sometimes not. But its all on me. Taiji doesn’t fail me, I fail me. Or the other guy is just more experienced and has a much more extensive knowledge. Either way, it is never the syle.
Good post Baichi
4 baichi // Jan 22, 2007 at 4:29 pm
You are right, the term orthodoxy comes from religion and cannot be used for martial arts in a literal sense. Although to me it seems as if a lot of people who practice MA are actually interested in religion more than anything else. That’s why they are looking for the “real” martial art (as if it were some higher truth).
I would say in regard to the Chen family, they are the orthodoxy not because their training methods did not change over time. They did because they have to, it’s ridiculous to think that what they did 300 years ago would be the same as what they do now (although the Chinese way of perceiving history would not think it to be ridiculous at all). But if you have a place with lots of practioners and teachers and a couple of guys who learn there and then move some place else and do their own thing, it is way more probable for the single practioners to change their training methods (maybe even fundamentally) than for the people of the place packed with teachers. That’s why I think you have to view Chenjiagou, Xi’an and maybe to a lesser degree Beijing as having more orthodox interpretations of Chen-style. But as I said, this is only interesting from a historical point of view, it does not relate to wether you will get your desired benefits out of it.
5 Chad // Jan 23, 2007 at 1:10 am
Baichi,
Let me clarify. I wasn’t commenting on yur use of the term orthodoxy, I think you are right in the choice of the term. While it is most often used in the religious context, it applies to any activity, school of thought, or practice. Our use of unorthodox is a good indicator of its application.
I also understand what you are geting at. the Chen village versions would be definately considered orthodox, as well as any standardized set of criteria set down for performance of the set and the progression of training. My point is that even within the orthodox interpretations there is wide variety. Wang Xian’s form looks very different from Chen Xia Wangs form which looks different from Fake’s and so on.
I also entirely agree with your charcterization of martial artists having religious or dogmatic attetudes toward their practice. Most hold on to concepts they learned from their teachers without examination or deeper thought on the why’s and wherefores. They simple do it to be “traditional” or as you put it “orthodox”. This to me is a natural reaction when dealing with martial arts which are rather anachronistic these days. There is alot of uncertainty and confusion of the purposes, value, and validity of the practice of martial arts in the age of the gun, nuclear weapons, and smart bombs. It is to be expected that many will feel defensive of their practices value, either obsessing about martial application, meditation and philosphy, or it’s orthodoxy.
I would imagine all of us feel this way at some point, I know i have, and will try to make the art meaningful in a way best suited to them. This is fantastic, and a necessary thing. But, our sense of unworthyness in sme aspects may make us give unneeded excuses or rationales of practicing what and how we do. This is a non issue. Every person makes the art their own and in the end, this is all that matters.
6 Jess O // Jan 23, 2007 at 1:44 am
I agree that it’s too easy to judge. Beginners and masters seem to have that “you are doing it all wrong” syndrome.
The sure cure is to spar someone who does it wrong. Quickly we discover that no matter what they train in, most people are close to an even match, if they are trying hard.
What happens when someone doing it all wrong is just as good as you are? Then it’s time to start digging into what Dave is talking about, the “why do we do it this way” and focusing on the strengths of your style.
No method has everything, so it’s smart to focus on your styles specialties.
-Jess O
7 baichi // Jan 23, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Chad, I think you are right. I have met a lot of people now where you can clearly sense the uncertainty you spoke of, and the results are just as you described…
Leave a Comment