h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A620227

Following on from the "Ultimate Martial Artist" Entry, I undertook to write an entry on Tai Chi. So here it is.

Waddya think? Have a whilst you're reading...

Nice entry. It brought up some things unknown to me. I have learned Tai Chi of the Health-variety and have been told only that there is the possibility of using it as a martial art, but that it would not be as effective as other martial arts. In retrospect this might be an indication of your statement that it takes a long time and a special training, which certainly can't be done in a ten-hour-workshop.
I think this article is comprehensive.

Thanks for the kind words

Tai Chi is definitely as effective as any other martial method.

In fact, there are no good or bad martial arts, just good or bad martial artists.

Hi Ploppy (can I still call you that?)

Excellent entry. Surprised how little you make of "Chi", however. In my ignorance I would have expected it to be central to the art. Still learning...

Since you mentioned karate, you might like to include the following code instead of the word:

Karate

That'll give you a link to the Edited Entry. There's now a link to here from my entry on the Ultimate Martial Art (which is still in Peer Review!), and thanks for writing this...

H.

Hi Geoff - can I call you, 'The martial artist formerly known as Ploppy'? I like your article, it manages to be comprehensive and interesting whilst remaining succinct and easy to follow. It's cool.

Like Hoovooloo, though, I was a bit surprised and very interested in your dismissal of chi - for me it raised more questions than it answers.

You are quite careful to specify that it's the Western interpretation of chi which you reject, but you don't say why this is inaccurate. Are you saying that the Chinese understand something by the concept that can't be expressed in English, or do you not accept it at all?

I've got something to talk about at my next training session at any rate!

CK

Since The Artist (martial) Formerly Known As Ploppy shamelessly self-promoted in another Peer Review thread, I'm returning the favour. Go here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A600085

to read about a rather different martial art. The Tai Chi entry is referenced there.

I would like to see more about the concept of chi in this entry - or better still, a separate entry referenced from here, and back again (if you see what I mean). Be careful, though. Writing entries is addictive and before you know what you're doing you'll have half a dozen intertwingled entries in Peer Review at once!

Seriously, a separate entry on Chi, it's place in the culture and philosophy, its significance to martial arts and the reason for its basic untranslateability (is that a word? it is now...) would be a perfect adjunct to this, allowing you to answer all the questions brought up here without diluting the impact of *this* entry at all.

This homework assignment is due in at the end of next week, and no telling me the dog chewed it

H.
Thanking you for writing this and apologising for asking you to write another one so soon!

Hi Geoff, (Can I just call you Geoff?)
interesting reading. I think its a good entry although, like two of the posts above, your comments about chi left me wanting to know more about what chi is, in its correct context.

I was also interested that you don't mention the co-ordination between breathing rythms and movement, which, for me, is what makes sense of the forms. Is this because the emphasis on this is due to 'health' teaching? It was put forward as one of the principles by the teacher I went to, although admittedly one which seemed more 'optional' than the others. (And the tai chi here may be heavily influenced by the necessity to get enough 'students' to get the course run.)

I agree with what you say about phychological benefits taking over from the physical benefits in the way many people practise Tai Chi. Its a shame since I suspect the phychological benefits resulting from gaining the physical benefits are probably more lasting!

OK, here we go....

The reason I haven't discussed breathing is because I was taught the breath should come and go naturally, without imposing any kind of rhythm. To do so would go against the principle of relaxation

Chi... oh Lordie To me, Chi in the martial arts is a Chinese catch-all for a multitude of Western terms. I used the term "Tactile sensitivity" in the article, and this is one facet of "Chi". Another context I have heard a Master use is "Chi Training", meaning stamina training. "Killer Chi" for an aggressive attitude. In my experience the people who spend their time trying to "feel their chi" are invariably the ones who don't grasp the basic physicalities of the art.

I learned a martial art that has been madly misrepresented in the West over the years, and my teachers countered that with large doses of scepticism about the mystical powers attributed to the art. Consequently, I really don't buy into the idea of this universal "life force", and I think someone with a more open mind would be better discussing the overall concept, which extends outside the rather narrow realm of the martial arts and into other areas of life, eg medicine.

Very cool article. I wonder if it would be worthwhile mentioning the other, less well known 'soft' Chinese styles: Pa-Kua and Hsing-I? Also, the 'martial' form of the Yang style includes an 88 movement two-person set form, which is similar to advanced pushing-hands practise, and aptly demonstrates the practical combative functionality of the art. And did you know that the famous 'Little Dragon' Bruce Lee studied T'ai-chi prior to learning Wing-Chun from Yip Man?

Good stuff, Geoff!

Tal,

I suppose I should mention Pa-Kua and Hsing-I. I think there's an article on Pa-Kua in the Guide somewhere.

I'd forgotten about the "San Shou"! Maybe because I never really liked it as a training method. If partner (A) did a movement incorrectly then partner (B) often had to contrive the next move in the sequence instead of going with the flow and doing something different.


I'll put these into the entry

OK - changes made. T

here is an Edited Entry on Pa-Kua, so I've linked to it.

Yeah, 'san shou', that's it! As you say, if rigidly adhered to, the thing is not a useful training method. It is when you begin to improvise the movements, at speed, that it becomes a wholly different matter

The formal stuff is like learning musical scales in order to eventually go beyond them.

If you ever get the chance, do a little sparring with a Wing Chun stylist.. fun!!

We have the same understanding of San Shou.

As for playing with a WingChun guy... such has not been my pleasure. I've had fun with a Wing Chun guy who wanted to learn pushing hands, but he wanted to learn, so it wasn't a fair one-on-one. I've seen some sticky hands and I think I see where that exercise is coming from....

My teacher used to be a Wing Chun student. He sees no difference between good Tai Chi and good Wing Chun. He told me (and I have no reason to doubt him) that the writings of Wing Chun warn against fighting a Tai Chi exponent because the arts are too similar.

You could link to 'Walking Sticks', http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A591301

Er.. I didn't get the point of the "Pushing hands competitions are commonplace..." para

other than that, a great entry

I think I understand why you're having problems with that paragraph. I'll try and make it clearer.

Thanks

I wonder if the final sentence of para two in the 'what is t'ai-chi' section might be misinterpreted as suggesting the highest goal of the martial arts is to hurt people?

I know the martial arts has a bad rap, but I always thought the highest goal was to control the situation; even to avoid fighting if at all possible. The 'Art of Fighting Without Fighting', as Bruce Lee said.

Perhaps it may be more accurate to say there are only so many ways to defend oneself?

I can understand your concern, Taliesin, but your construction doesn't quite make the same point, that at the highest levels it doesn't matter whether an art is internal or external.

The internal-external debate is a hot one, but not one that would mean very much to anybody who has no experience of the martial arts, and it's a challenge to put it in simple terms. I've always understood it in terms of how strength and power is developed, but some people ('s advocate) argue that the split is Buddhist/Taoist, for example, or based on geography (internal to China versus influenced from outside).

It might be possible, I suppose, to have something along the lines of 'it doesn't matter how the power is generated, a punch is a punch'. I have every confidence that it could be put better than I just did, but you know what I mean, I hope.

btw, spotted a typo, the word 'highest' in the phrase 'at the highest levels' in the preceding sentence should start with a lower case 'h', not an upper case one.

I'm thinking it's about time this article was spotted by a scout. Perhaps it has been, and they're waiting for their picks to come around.

Corrected the typo. Also changed the para on push hands competition to try and make it clearer. Comments on that welcome.

As to Tal's concerns... I believe that the primary original aim of the martial arts is to hit people. Fatally, if possible. People originally learned these arts for purely pragmatic reasons. The reason that religion and philosophy came into the equation is because those who fight and face death regularly become interested in what comes after death. The skills came first, the morality came later.

Besides, it is also my view that arts do not have a philosophy; only people do. That probably sounds trite, but I think it's important to distinguish between the practice of Tai Chi, and the motivation for practicing. I have tried to avoid any discussion of philosophy in the article for just this reason.

Having said all that, I have altered the paragraph slightly. Let me know if it reads any better.

It hits the spot for me Geoff, if I may put it like that. I think a lot of the philosophical baggage attached to the martial arts was tacked on fairly recently. The old TV series, Kung Fu, has a lot to answer for. I'm sure they got half their stories from the Little Book of Calm!

That said, I think the new version strikes a better balance. You make it perfectly clear in the preceding paragraph that Tai Chi is a fighting art. I don't think the highest goal in a martial art is to hurt people OR to control the situation - surely it's to win. Only if you have the skill to fight can you exercise the choice not to.

We are speculating here, but I would say that the primary or original aim of the martial arts was to survive. Whether that meant hitting people fatally, controlling the situation, or just getting the heck out of Dodge

Anyway, my point was simply that the original phrasing could have been interpreted as suggesting that martial artists went out of their way to learn how to hurt people, enjoyed hurting people etc..

Non-martial artists don't understand why someone would spend many years learning a martial art, so it is easy for them to conclude that martial artists are a bunch of sadistic bullies.

Arts such as Okinawa-te and Capoeira, and many of the unarmed combat arts of China were developed because commoners were forbidden to carry weapons. As you say, purely pragmatic reasons.

The philosophical 'baggage' that has become attached to the arts has probably done more to damage the credibility of the martial arts than has the elusive notion of 'chi'

Anyway, your minor revisions hit the spot, as far as I'm concerned.

Consider this article scouted