Talk:Tai chi chuan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tai chi chuan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Tai chi chuan was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Disambiguation needed.

Tai Chi is a martial art form that utilizes both the fist and the external weapon. Chuan is the word that denotes the use of hands as weapons. It is incorrect to call Tai Chi "Tai Chi Chuan" unless you are talking specificaly about weapons-free forms.

No, Tai Chi by itself denotes a daoist philosophical concept which literally means the most elemental separation of yin and yang. Chuan at the end of tai chi means "fist" with the connotation of shadow-boxing and differentiates the tai chi concept from the tai chi martial art. You can shadow box with weapons. Dropping the chuan is like using a nickname it is informal and for convenience. Put it this way, if you were correct about this we would have to go back and correct the names of around 1000 chinese styles. Mlmalone 20:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion or two for improvement

1. It is not necessarily true that most scholars agree that taijiquan began with the Chen family. Taijiquan's history, in fact, is in some dispute. For many years, Zhang San Feng was (and still is by many people) regarded as the founder of taijiquan. In recent years the Chen family has laid claim as the founders of taijiquan. A third arguement states that no one individual or family created taijiquan but, rather, the art evolved through the centuries from several different sources.

The arguement that Zhang San Feng was the founder of taijiquan is based on his authorship of the first of the tai chi classics. Scholars dispute the authenticity of this claim, however, pointing out that others could have just as easily authored the essay. Add to that, some historical suggestions that Zhang San Feng may have been nearly 200 years old and it is not hard to see why this story is often dismissed.

The Chen family's claim to authorship of taijiquan depends on how you define taijiquan. If, for example, you define it as an art utilizing the taiji principles as outlined in the taiji classics, then there are documented arts in China as early as the 7th century that fit this definition (see: "The Dao of Taijiquan" by Jou Tsung Hwa). Further, many of the guiding principles and energies of the art (chan si jing, fa jing, etc.) also predate Chen style taijiquan and are found in older arts including xingyiquan. Ba fa (ward off, roll back, press, push, etc.) are also found in arts older than Chen style taijiquan and many of the postures found in Chen style exist in martial art styles predating Chen Wanting.

I would like to suggest that the author offer the arguements on all sides and allow the reader to decide.

2. The author cites only two key components to training - solo form and push hands. No where is mentioned the most crucial aspect of taijiquan training - zhan zhuang (standing training). Most all traditional taijiquan schools begin students with zhan zhuang. Standing training serves many purposes. First, it helps practitioners memorize proper structure in static postures. Secondly, it teaches students to find and maintain complete muscle relaxation (song). Third, it trains concentration and intention (yi) through utilization of advanced mental exercises designed to facilitate contraindication within the musculature. The end result is a process that eliminates muscle tension while at the same time increasing strength, speed, reflexes and reaction time. Once this state can be maintained in a static position, the next stage is to introduce this state into movement. This is where tai chi form comes in. Perhaps most importantly, without the inclusion of standing training in the beginning stages, it is much more difficult to learn to produce and maintain peng jing, a key energy in taijiquan.

I would like to suggest that the author researches the subject and append their entry to include zhan zhuang. For further study, some of the more advanced standing techniques can be found in Yiquan, a martial system founded by the legendary master Wang Xiangzhai.

Sincerely,

Jim Donnelly, Director, American Society of Internal Arts, www.AmericanSocietyOfInternalArts.org

HANDS FOLDED IN RESPECT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdonnelly001 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC).


Greetings. The concerns you mention are addressed in the current article, if in the passive voice usually used to minimize controversy. We don't actually say the Chens invented T'ai Chi, but we say the current orthodox styles, all came through the Chen family. Other claim this or that, but haven't provided independent verification. We also give a mention to the Chang San-feng story, as well as mentioning the gradual evolution theory and the neo-Confucians. Reference is given to an exhaustive study of the origins of the art by Douglas Wile. I don't personally aagree with Wile's speculations, but the info he provides, names and dates, is valuable. The Debate on the origins of Tai Chi Chuan would actually be an excellent separate article.
Post standing is mentioned in the bit on nei kung:
  • Breathing exercises; nei kung (內功 nèigōng) or, more commonly, ch'i kung (氣功 qìgōng) to develop ch'i (氣 qì) or "breath energy" in coordination with physical movement and post standing or combinations of the two. These were formerly taught only to disciples as a separate, complementary training system. In the last 50 years they have become more well known to the general public.
Different schools have different approaches. Zhan zhuang is vitally important, but it is one of four varieties of meditation taught. The Yang family (esp. Yang Zhenduo, as he mentioned 11 years or so back in Smalheiser's T'ai Chi Magazine) have de-emphasised it in their curriculum in recent years. The Wu family teach it, but they teach moving stance training first, as they feel it is more difficult (and more valuable in this case) to learn to balance while learning to coordinate different body parts. Later they get people into as many 30 minute horse stances and golden roosters as they'd like ;-). Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 14:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Fire Star,

Zhan zhuang is, unfortunately, a poorly understood topic. Post standing is a multi-purpose tool, not one single practice. The posting referred to in the neigong section of wikipedia refers to the use of standing as a form of qi development. While this type of exercise may be found in taiji schools, this is not the same zhan zhuang used for structural training. Likewise, zhan zhuang is not the same as deep standing for 30 minutes in postures. That type of standing is designed primarily for developing leg conditioning and balance. Nor is it simply a form of meditation as one usually thinks of meditation. Yiquan probably comes closest to describing the old methods of standing training, although some argue that, as practiced today, even Yiquan has been watered down a bit. As for Yang Zhenduo, despite being the head of the Yang family, he doesn't necessarily speak for taijiquan masters everywhere. He's just one of hundreds with a single viewpoint. Good Holidays!

Jim Donnelly, Hands Folded In Respect

While you certainly show credible knowledge and sources mr. Donnelly, I have to disagree with you. The majority of credible scholars place Zhang San Feng in the same context as such chinese cultural hero-founders as the famous general Yue Fei. That is to say, most likely a real person at some point, but who has been mythologized enormously. Zhang San Feng is not only credited as the founder by taiji practitioners, but by just about anyone practicing an art with internal characteristics. While the idea that the Chens are the first and sole originators of taiji principles or the first incarnation of the ba fa is totally inane, it does not make a semi-mythical character in chinese folk tales out to be the sole originator. like you said, taiji is really the work of hundreds of individuals throughout the generations contributing to its development. and just to repeat FireStar's arguement...while I personally agree about the importance of standing meditation, it is by a huge margin NOT the core taiji practice in the west or east among current practitioners. though regretable, we can all regcognize that the days of students spending weeks/months only learning zhan zhuang are over. Just look at the advent of the multitude of short forms, people have neither the time nor the inclination to spend that much time on zhan zhuang as a core/founding practice. We are not going to return to some "golden age" of taiji where people revere zhan zhuang practice. VanTucky 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to dig up the Yang Zhenduo interview, perhaps that would be a good way to source the changing rôle of the practise.
In the T'ai Chi meditation methods I learned from the Wu family, zhan zhuang was 1/4 of the whole, there was:
  • Stillness inside/stillness outside (zhan zhuang)
  • Stillness inside/movement outside (forms, pushing hands, some nei kung)
  • Movement inside/stillness outside (hsiao t'ien in various positions)
  • Movement inside/movement outside (silk reeling)
Unfortuantely, I hasven't found this actually written down in my sources anywhere, so as interesting material as it is, I can't put it in the article! I'll keep looking of course... Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 14:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stub expansion

I was just considering the idea of expanding the number of tai chi stubs like the single whip stub. a group of stub explaining the postures of tai chi found in every style (single whip, grasp bird's tail etc.) and detailing the differences in execution and application. anyone want to collaborate? VanTucky 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tchoung Ta Chen Style?

I just discovered the pages for the so-called Tchoung style tai chi. Not disputing that this guy taught his own version of tai chi which was obviously Yang influenced. But his students claim he learned from a much older generation of Yang teachers than Yang Chengfu, this and other claims by the people who wrote the page (his students of course) allude to the Tchoung style being "original" Yang style that is superior to the lineage of all other Yang teachers. Historical truth not withstanding, wikipedia has strict NPOV and if we dont let people write their own bios, then we sure as hell cant let his students lord it over the article of their "style" claiming to be the pure standard bearers of Yang teachings. I suggest the article for a serious overhaul, maybe even deletion. VanTucky 20:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've only ever heard of the style just now (not that that means much) and I agree the articles need to be either completely re-written or removed. Good catch. --Fire Star 火星 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've revamped them for npov. this makes them okay for inclusion I think, though having not a single indedpendent citation, they are still on shaky ground. VanTucky 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved that the contents of Tchoung Ta Chen style tai chi be merged with the Yang style page. VanTucky 21:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Consistency of links

The following two articles link to tai chi, should there not also be reverse links here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baguazhang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X%C3%ADngy%C3%ACqu%C3%A1n

Currently there seems to be no mention of these two associated arts that are frequently taught alongside tai chi. (CJE) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.169.45.170 (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Translation?

first of sorry but i dont know how to input chinese yet. second, the quan or chuan in tai chi chuan or taiji quan does mean fist when used by itself. however in martial arts it connotes "boxing" to distinguish itself from just taiji, which is just a philosophical theory. Almost all Chinese martial arts have a quan at the end to denote it being a "boxing" style and not just a family name. However, quan or chuan in itself means fist.--Blckavnger 15:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Tai Chi Chuan is in fact one of the forms of Tai Chi, not Tai Chi itself. I have changed the redirect that led "Tai Chi" to this page. If anyone is interested about the subject I did a quick search on google and found an ok site about it. [1] All the best, Whiskey in the Jar 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To clerify: Tai Chi Chuan is the Martial Art which can further be broken down into many substyles under the overall heading. Tai Chi itself is the daoist philosophical concept which the martial art is loosely based on. Mlmalone 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition Needed of Qigong

The word Qigong is used a few times in the article, but there is no definition of it. I suggest adding at least a short parenthetical definition after the first reference. (I would add it myself, but I don't know what it is.) --Skb8721 17:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We've got:
  • Breathing exercises; nei kung (內功 nèigōng) or, more commonly, ch'i kung (氣功 qìgōng) to develop ch'i (氣 qì) or "breath energy" in coordination with physical movement and post standing or combinations of the two.
The initial definition of "breathing exercises" is pretty accurate. From there, the opinions differ widely what they entail, and those opinions can be treated better at the linked articles like nei kung, ch'i kung, ch'i, zhan zhuang, etc. --Fire Star 火星 17:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Its not really necessarry to include a definition. Thats what internal links are for. If someone doesnt know what Qigong is, then they read the definition on the Qigong page. VanTucky 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What would be nice is something on the differences and similarities between qigong and tai chi, or whether one is a subset of the other. Rojomoke (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

No inline citations. Also, for future reference, you should put {{GAnominee|date}} here on the talk page when you nominate, as described in the directions at WP:GAC. --Ideogram 04:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youtube Tai Chi Video Growth

Just want to share that I have noticed a growth in the number of quality youtube videos of tai chi including rare clips of well known masters. I ahve some on my page on youtube Master Gohring's Tai Chi & Kung Fu Youtube Videos.

There are also many many more. I don't know if they can be embedded and discussed here, Youtube's interface is a bit difficult for discussions and it often has non Tai chi practicioners commenting on tai chi videos. Anyway, if you have any ideas please share. I am still pretty new to wikipedia so let me know if this is not appropriate to post here.

Thank you.

Master Gohring Master Gohring's Tai Chi & Kung Fu 6611 Airport Blvd. Austin TX, 78752 512-422-4245 Master Gohring's Tai Chi & Kung Fu

[edit] Intro/first sections

To reach GA status, I think we need to rewrite the intro and first few sections to make them as concise as possible, also keeping in mind order/grouping (i.e. puttin all the mentions of where it comes from etc. together for cohesion). I think for someone who has no idea what exactly tai chi is, this article's intro would be highly confusing. Remember, first and foremost Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a resource for people. Despite my personal feelings, I think we also need to review the entire article for NPOV concerening the fair and balanced presentation of the martial art versus health/exercise points of view. I will be doing some bold edits, so please feel free to discuss them with me of course. VanTucky 03:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What you say is sensible. There was weight towards justification, with the martial arts therapy link, etc. That is good to have in the See also or health section, but stremlining the initial explication is fine. I'm going to (time and external commitiments permitting) start collecting as many inline refs as I can as well. I'll post them here first to see what people think. --Fire Star 火星 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neijia pride!

I've proposed getting a userbox for tai chi players. Bout time we had one. You can view the request here. Cheers! VanTucky 01:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

I've removed the following paragraph, as it seems to want to make a causal connexion between the prevalence of squatting in Asia with the practise of T'ai Chi Ch'uan. I'm pretty sure that squatting (from prehistory) predates T'ai Chi (Song dynasty at the earliest, but only recorded from the late Qing dynasty), and is probably more directly linked to the relative scarcity of chairs in rural villages, at least until recently. For us to imply that an aspect of T'ai Chi may be a contributing factor to the syndrome is opinion or even original research if it isn't explicitly stated in a secondary source.

Even for the young, Tai Chi's focus on relaxing the kua may be a contributing factor in the greater pelvic flexibility observed in Asian countries and the use of the squatting position as a more common rest mode.[1]

--Fire Star 火星 13:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the section refers to referenced and peer-reviewed medical journal articles, so I personally think deleting the paragraph is fine. Orangemarlin 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with that since it could fall under "interesting but useless facts" since it is out of context, but it isn't original research. This concept was introduced in a NY Times article on Tai Chi's health benefit that I think is still in references. I would like to see a cite for your claim of the squat's age as a cultural attribute Fire Star, as I could find no other sources on the history of the squat position (check the article) dating back that far. Also, the paragraph doesn't categorically suggest that all Asian squatting traditions are a product of Tai Chi, only that it is distinctly possible that it contributes to the ability to do so. A broader suggestion would be totally inane, considering that the squatting position is arguably more prevalent in other countries (say, Thailand) that do not practice Tai Chi on such a wide scale. It seemed pretty tame compared to other statements in the article, such as a direct quote from an AIDS patient saying Tai Chi and Qigong have helped put his condition basically into remission. VanTucky 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree that doing T'ai Chi regularly should promote the ability to squat (especially among relatively unsquatted westerners!) and coincidentally there are several squat like stretches in Wu style beyond the ubiquitous variations on horse stance. They may exist in other styles too, for all I know. It may have struck me wrong, but the paragraph as worded seemed to imply that T'ai Chi was partly responsible for Chinese squatting, which didn't seem likely, because as popular as T'ai Chi is, I don't think it is that popular. If we can get a secondary source saying that T'ai Chi promotes the ability to squat, we should feature it. I brought the paragraph here though, so we could sort it out and perhaps reword it. The NYT article cited (which seems interesting) requires registration, which opens up the spam floodgates most times, so I didn't access it. For an overview of the prehistory and history of squatting, archaeologists (and pathologists) have long been aware of changes in the leg and hip bones they call "squatting facets" in skeletons of people who squatted for extended periods of time. A Google search will provide a lot of descriptions and examples of the syndrome. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 19:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very interesting. Yeah, the NYT registration doesn't give out your info for spammers or send any of their own, but it does cost money. I can sign in again with mine and look at the articles in the refs again to be sure, but if it can be cited would you agree to a rewording for clarification (that it contributes to the ease of motion, not the reason for the motion in Chinese culture)? and btw: almost every other style has squatting exercises or sustained kua-opening in its forms (Chen style is like one long squatting exercise for christssake!)VanTucky 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the idea is fine, but a reversal of the wording will be better, perhaps paraphrasing the article cite. I suppose squatting (ankles to butt, feet flat on ground) is the deepest horse stance, after all! On a side note, I have been reading excepts recently of what sinologists think is a 4th century BCE chapter (out of many others) of a collective philosophical work, the Guanzi (text). The chapter in question (chapter 49, called "Inner Training" 內業) mentions a lot of the same kind of language of shen, jing and qi in the same way that it is used by many T'ai Chi schools. I wonder if anyone else thinks that would be worth expanding on for the article? --Fire Star 火星 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that has interesting implications for the history section. Can you give me the sections you are referring to here? I think with a proper quotation or paraphrase it would be good to add a sentence along the lines of "...not only are there predecessor neigong arts to Tai Chi Chuan (Tao Yin etc.) but the theoretical terminology still in use today dates back to mentions in Chinese philisophical texts, notably the Guanzi (and maybe the Tao Te Ching) of the 4th century BCE. VanTucky 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll post some of A.C. Graham's translated excerpts from the chapter here tomorrow to give you an idea. I've got the whole chapter in Chinese, but just excerpts so far from well known translators. My classical Chinese isn't good enough to do it justice, I'm afraid... --Fire Star 火星 02:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question of categorisation

I recently was reading {{Template:Martial arts}} by type and found that tai chi was listed as a striking art. This seemed absolutely ludicrous to me, so I moved it to the grappling section. While this isn't exactly correct, as tai chi isn't interested in sustaining holds, locks or groundwork like judo or wrestling and does implement some strikes, placing tai chi in the same category of martial art by type as taekwondo and karate seemed especially foolish. It also depends on style, because different styles apply the bafa in different ways. Chen style could most definitely be called a grappling art, but I'm not so sure about Yang, Wu, or Sun styles. Any thoughts on how tai chi should be categorised in this context? VanTucky 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a nice long reply all typed out for you, accidentally hit the esc button and it all went bye-bye. Crap. Short version: I believe any single category is unsatisfactory - traditional tai chi trains all of these things in multiple ranges. Wu style also usually emphasizes grappling, wrestling, hitting the floor and fighting on and from the ground (groundwork) and throws before striking and kicking, esp. if the student is younger. What sets Wu style (and I'm sure other styles) tai chi apart from more conventional wrestling systems like shuai jiao is that there has to be training in the sensitivity required to completely neutralise an attack with sticking, adhering connecting and following expected from the first instance of contact with an opponent. "Give up oneself to follow the other" (yin) coupled with a simultaneous counterattack (yang). We may not always respond this way (we may go all "previous yang" on a caught red-handed rapist or child molester, for example) but without this ability, we say we can't really be doing tai chi. Other systems respond, too, of course, but tai chi has to have the ability to have a soft response. And then, there are weapons... Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 17:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
After doing some reading, I too agree that it shouldn't be categorised at all. I'll remove it entirely. Other than the style differences, especially poignant to me was this passage from Fu Zhongwen's Yang Shi Taijiquan,

"Taijiquan is not the kind of martial art whose applications can be broken down into specific elementary techniques against specific kinds of hypothetical attacks. It is rather an art that teaches one, gradually, through individual and partner training, to respond with sensitivity to circumstances..."

applicable no? VanTucky 19:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the template could be changed to include a fourth category for martial arts that cannot be pigeonholed into just "striking" or "grappling". Tai Chi Chuan could be included under a heading titled "mixed", for example. The template is more valuable if it is more comprehensive, rather than less, and Tai Chi is too prominent and important a martial art to be excluded.
Alternately, perhaps a consensus could be reached as to Tai Chi's primary focus as either striking or grappling. For example, weapons are an indispensible part of most karate curriculae, but karate is still primarily a striking art, and thus belongs under "striking". Likewise with jujutsu - most traditional schools teach a comprehensive set of striking skills, but it is still properly categorized as a grappling art, which is its primary feature and focus. What is the ultimate combative purpose of Tai Chi, to be able to kill with a strike, immobilize with a pin, disengage or injure with a projection, or something else? Thoughts? Bradford44 20:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, the problem isn't particularly that tai chi as a whole defys categorization , but that each family style of tai chi applies the art in a different way (same theory, different look and techniques). Chen style is often described by Chen teachers as a grappling art. You can see about Wu style above. Yang style is the most ambiguous in my opinion, employing grappling and strikes almost exactly equally. Sun and Wu/Hao are more focused on fajing strikes in my opinion. If you insist on being comprehensive (which is generally a good idea) in the template, then you could possibly cat. each style of tai chi in a different area. But not everyone might agree with my personal assessment of the styles. A mixed category might work, but in my mind the purpose of the template is to group those arts which are otherwise unrelated except as grappling, striking or weapons arts; not just to list all the martial arts articles. If tai chi doesn't relate to any of the categories (and hence the martial arts) listed, then it doesn't need listing. VanTucky 20:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the template is actually a navigation bar. A reader should be able to jump from type of martial art to type of martial art without using the search function. So I think the purpose would be comprehensiveness. Bradford44 23:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that karate was a separate discipline that was primarily forms and sparring, and karateka would take a jujitsu or judo class if they wanted grappling or a kobudo class if they wanted weapons training. Japanese martial arts tended to be more specialised like that (I do use the past tense, though), and one of the things Morihei Ueshiba apparently wanted to do with aikido was to bring weapons and grappling under one roof. Chinese martial arts have historically been much more independant, sometimes even seemingly jealous to western eyes, each school providing an wider range of training in one place under one name without relying on other schools, with notable historical exceptions, of course. Tai chi has 5 main styles, and nowadays each style has different emphases in their training. Yang Zhenduo for example, has stated in interviews that while tai chi chuan is indeed martial, his branch of the Yang family no longer teaches the martial art to the public. Other styles are still martial, and some modern "styles" eschew any mention of martial art in their classes whatever. I can only speak definitively for Wu style, but it works basic stances and forms first, basic pushing hands and sticking to neutralise second, hitting the floor third (tumbling and throws), joint traps, locks and breaks (wrestling) fourth and then combining all of that with striking into freestyle pushing hands. About a 5 year process for a student under 30 or so, longer as they get older. So at the beginning, it is predominantly grappling and groundwork, but in the perspective of an overview of where the training eventually goes, the different aspects even out. At that point, it depends more on the skills and preferences of the individual practitioner what techniques they will prefer for fighting. There are also didactic, nei kung and traditional Chinese medicine curricula from the families that are studied simultaneously with martial training at intermediate and advanced levels, which are actually more complicated.
A teacher's job is to at least introduce the different aspects so that the student may eventually teach them all in their turn, even if they only specialise in one, two or three areas. That kind of introduction can take up to 20 years in traditional schools! At that point, if the instructor(s) is(are) satisfied, a student can then open their own school.
What I was taught was that the ultimate martial goal was to be able to defend ourselves effortlessly, to not get hurt, ever, by an opponent; and the ultimate health goal was to be perfectly healthy, to feel no aches, pains or disease. They also said that only one out of a thousand ever got that good, but the benefits on the way to that goal are significant enough to justify the work even for an "average" student.
Much of this isn't stuff I'd put in the article, as a lot of it is from oral transmission (the written records being more circumspect, the old-timers not wanting to "give away the store"), but I wanted to add my 2 fen towards the issue of categorisation. It's a tough one. Wu Chien-ch'uan said: "Scientific principles could apply to every aspect of T'ai Chi Ch'uan skills. That being said, the ways that empty and full transform are truly unfathomable." --Fire Star 火星 21:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that a suggested replacement for this template (addressing categorisation) is being discusses on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_Arts#Navbox_revision if you want to add your opinions on a wider basis. -- Medains 08:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] superflous languages

Why should their be translations into Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese in the infobox? There aren't translations for other non-originating countries, and tai chi isn't a unique part of the aforementioned countries culture's. VanTucky 01:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about Korea, but I know tcc is popular in Japan and, surprisingly, Vietnam (which has a large overseas Chinese population). Whether that is enough of a reason to have the info in, I don't know. It's interesting, I guess. --Fire Star 火星 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess it just seems like the transliterations should be there bc that is the original usage of the word. And as no cites on numbers of tai chi players can be found by country, it is pretty debatable about how popular tai chi may be in some country. It may be that taiji is just as popular in say, the UK or Malaysia, as Vietnam. I think that the other languages are included bc they happen to be Asian, which is sheer ignorance. VanTucky 02:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any cites, but coincidentally I'd agree from my own original research the UK and Malaysia have more. Vietnam is a former Qing colony, so it kind of makes sense. There was a thing where 1,000 Japanese in identical silk outfits demonstrated a wushu Yang form in Tiananmen a few years back. I'll see if I can find a link to that... --Fire Star 火星 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoa whoa, I'm not saying taiji isnt certifiably popular in those countries, I'm just saying that there isn't a translated name for taiji from all of the countries it is popular in, so that is clearly not the qualification for inclusion, nor should it be. It seems more to have to do with regional association of origin. But we all know taiji isn't a Japanese or Vietnamese martial art. So why do we need them translated in the English Wikipedia's infobox? Isn't that the purview of the Japanese and Vietnamese wikis? VanTucky 06:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
We don't currently have (or probably need) sections like Tai chi in Europe, Tai chi in Canada, Tai chi in Japan, etc., which is a logical place for that kind of info to go (if we want it) anyway. Bradford44's suggestion is good, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Instead of the boxes that are there now, why don't you use {{infobox martial art}} for the right-hand corner, and use {{zh-tspw}} inline with the beginning of the article as recommended by WP:MOS-ZH#Combination Templates? (See Xingyiquan for an example where this was implemented) Bradford44 13:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I would go for that for consistency with other MA articles. --Fire Star 火星 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion Bradford, I'll implement it (if someone didnt already). Thanks for batting this about with me FireStar. VanTucky 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version

I'm fine with that, but just FYI: we're probably going to get grumbling about unequivocally attributing the creation to Chen Wangting. It may be better to say: Disputed. And possibly include both Wangting and Zhang San Feng. VanTucky 17:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, I changed to "disputed". One of you guys with tai chi experience or knowledgable about the history should fill in the fields for "parenthood" and "notable practioners" if possible. Bradford44 18:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I filled in parenthood, but there are too many famous prac's to mention. Also, does "hardness" refer to difficulty or to hard and soft styles? VanTucky 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually (and don't blame me, I didn't make the template), "hardness" apparently refers to the hardness of competition,. so I always fill it in with "full-contact", "light-contact", "no-contact", "forms competition only", or "non-competitive". Bradford44 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to put pushing hands in in place of the light contact bit? Also, I've competed in sanshou and leitai tournaments when I was younger with only a tcc background. Striking, kicking, knees, elbows, throws. This is fairly common for Wu stylists in SE Asia. I'm pretty sure there are Chen guys who compete too, esp. in Taiwan by my recollections. Do you think that could (or should) be included? I'll go over some tournament results online to see if I can find any mention of tcc people competing this way. --Fire Star 火星 02:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
leitai and sanshou (especially under modern wushu governance) are separate practices/courses of study than taiji. It is so rare in taiji study (in Asia and beyond) for students to practice full-contact fighting as to be completely negligible in a functioning definition. Besides, people participating in leitai and sanshou are simply utilizing taiji, they aren't practicing taiji. And restrained contact push hands is the norm for taiji tournaments the world over. To include a full-contact note in the infobox on a resource on taiji for those who don't know it already would be sorely misleading. VanTucky 02:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Unfortunately, I'll have to agree that the overwhelming majority of schools have zero experience with full contact. I found this [2] that lists Eddie Wu as chairman of the Canadian wushu association, which oversees "Asian Games" style sanshou in Canada and in whose tournaments I have competed (I'm not his student, however, I learned from one of his uncles and his uncle's students). I don't think it is explicit enough for what I had in mind, though. --Fire Star 火星 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Dan Docherty fought using TCC in tournaments in 1976 and 1980 at least. He refers to it as "South East Asian Martial Arts Championships", the 1980 competition held in Malaysia - where he took the Super Heavyweight title after beating Roy Pink (a five ancestors stylist) - by KO - and Mr (first name not supplied) Lohandran (Chi Ke Chuan) on points. ref: http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/information/articles/tai_chi_gladiator.html (apparently published in "Fighting Arts International"). I've not been able to research either the original article or the tournament claim - though I once saw a video claiming to be of Dan knocking out Roy -- Medains (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] health benefits

WTF? I personally placed a NY Times citation to the last paragraph, and now it's gone with a fact tag on it. VanTucky 18:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The current link (this one) is very much a product advert interspersed with references. Finding these references and linking directly would be useful. I've done one, Article in The Lancet, requires free registration.

[edit] "See also" section

Hi, just wanted to mention that the "See also" section could use some trimming, as it should not include terms appearing in the body of the article. See WP:GTL#See also. Bradford44 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And as long as I'm here, I'd also like to mention that I haven't seen any arguments in a while, so perhaps the "controversial topic" tag at the top of this talk page can come down now. Bradford44 12:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. VanTucky (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a cult-element to this.

We have seen Christianity often manipulated towards that of a cult, by individuals with a hidden manipulative agenda.

Is there anything to suggest a 'hidden agenda' within the Tai Chi movement in North America ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is my opinion, and doesn't have much to do with the article, so if you want to discuss after this we should take it to my talk page. The tai chi movement, like Christianity or professional wrestling or theoretical physics, in North America or anywhere else, isn't a unified thing. So there are would-be cult leaders, and there are reputable teachers. Caveat emptor. The traditional schools focus on technical physical training, not spiritual speculation; New Age non-martial schools tend to get into abstract philosophising in aid of personality driven "teaching" that easily leads to manipulation. The teachers whom I learned from taught that correctly studied, tai chi chuan is like water. It benefits everyone equally, regardless of their religious denomination. If there is a crossover into spiritual training, it would be that anything a person does to improve their health, their relaxation and their ability to focus will assist them in their devotional activities, whatever those activities may be. Tai chi chuan is a martial art. Everything should tie directly into learning self-defense, if it doesn't, the teacher is teaching something else. --Fire Star 火星 18:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tai-Chi and Chi-Gong

What is the actual difference between the two in terms of health benefits? For if we only talk about health, Tai-Chi seems like another form of Chi-Gong. Also, both Tai-Chi and Chi-Gong are used by martial artists to improve their abilities. In that sense they both seem like the backbone of many martial arts styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.43.11 (talk • contribs)

While there is a great deal of overlap, traditional Tai Chi Chuan (Taijiquan) is more work, with greater demands and much larger repetitive range of motion than stand alone chi kung (qigong) forms or styles. Chi kung is a part of Tai Chi Chuan, but Tai Chi Chuan isn't a part of chi kung, which is to say, Tai Chi schools have historically done their own chi kung, but chi kung schools don't also do traditional Tai Chi. The martial requirements, if met, can also protect one's health against a physical attack, which is another benefit beyond that of a stand alone chi kung school. --Bradeos Graphon 15:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
How about their suitability as health systems? Would Chi-Gong be the one people train mainly for greater health benefits? Btw I have seen Chi-Gong styles in motion that require just as much dedication as any Tai-Chi form. I did some Chi-Gong that accompagnies the Choy-Lee Fut school. There were an external (18 Lohan) and internal form that were truly exhausting, much to my surprise. In many ways they resembled Tai-Chi. Then again, there was a separate third Tai-Chi form ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.43.11 (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've trained in China off and on since 1993, in Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Wu Tang and Hong Kong, and have never seen a chi kung system that was:
A. As complicated or demanding (in terms of balance, concentration, stamina and technical requirements of martial application) as a long traditional Tai Chi form.
B. On top of that, there are weapons forms in Tai Chi Chuan which are yet more complicated and demanding.
C. While these forms are demanding, they are not exhausting, you should have more energy after training than before.
D. Not all forms are created equal, for traditional Tai Chi, I mean the styles preserved and taught by the 5 families. The thoroughness with which traditional Tai Chi Chuan approaches health and conditioning (govt. wushu Taijiquan and New Age mix and match "facile gesturing" are a different story) is not approached by any stand alone school of chi kung for health.
F. Even if you could find a chi kung style more complicated than a long 45 minute low sitting 108 posture form, there is pushing hands in which you have someone trying to knock you down while you train to the same standard. Pushing hands is yang to the form training yin.
G. To mention pushing hands again, chi kung by itself doesn't teach self defence, and cannot help you maintain your health in the face of a physical attack. Martial chi kung coordination (which you describe) is helpful training concentration and for neutralising physical impact, but it isn't a stand alone system, it is trained as an adjunct to martial training.
With all that being said, I have to say that this discussion page is primarily for discussion of the article itself, not the art form in general. I don't mind answering a question or two, but this isn't the place for a chronic debate on the subject rather than the substance. Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon 11:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
NO problems and thanks for the info! I was just under the impression that Chi-Gong was the big umbrella and Tai-Chi under it, and partly the bridge that seemed to link martial arts with chi-gong, something in-between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.43.11 (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tai Chi Weapons and self-defense

I appreciate, whoever made better claims to Zhang San Feng in the article. I also agree with another person who posted here on this page, that Zhang San Feng, not "Chen" style is the original creator of Tai Chi. The article should make note of that. Also weapons and more on self-defense should be added and empathized. I am from direct Cheng Man Ching lineage. Thank You.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.4.100 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Why does the infobox say no strikes?

This is curious. Traditional tai chi chuan is loaded with strike training. Is the infobox meant to just represent wushu competitions? --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tai Chi or Taiji and Tai Chi Chuan or Taijiquan?

Just wondering why most of the Chinese words in Wikipedia are written with their Pinyin Romanization system, yet the Taijiquan article is written Tai Chi Chuan? It seems to be more mainstream to spell it Tai Chi Chuan and more "in the know" the spell it Taijiquan. This linguistic turn could also shed light on the initial discussion on this page regarding fists and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.155.15 (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is covered in the talk page archives linked above. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Tai Chi

I do not claim to have any knowledge about Tai Chi, and I simply stumbled across this article by coincidence. I did think it should be mentioned that the section entitled "modern tai chi" seems almost like a complaint instead of fact. With quotes like, "practically anyone can call themself a teacher" and "If they do teach self-defense, it is often a mixture of motions which the teachers think look like tai chi chuan with some other system", it seems more like a disgruntled tai chi teacher complaining than facts about the art. I suggest that the paragraph be rewritten or taken out due to the overall tone of this section of the article.

Ldavis57 (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)ldavis57

[edit] Consistency in transliteration

This article is not consistent in the way Chinese terms are transliterated. I started to make changes, but soon realized that I did not know the Wikipedia style well enough to do a good job, so I did not make any changes. I don't know much about t'ai chi, but I know enough Chinese to spot inconsistency. OatFarm (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] capitalization

In this article, it's variously referred to as Tai Chi, tai chi, and Tai chi. Is there any reason to capitalize either or both words? Considering the meaning of the phrase -- "supreme ultimate fist" -- I see none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeyharrison (talk • contribs) 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be in caps (the third way) as the start of a sentence. But tai chi is not a pronoun, so it shouldn't be arbitrarily capitalized. VanTucky 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal:Philosophy

It has been proposed by someone to merge the separate article T'ai chi philosophy into this article. I am taking a wait and see position. I have set them up so that there is a section with a summary statement and a separate article to see what develops. This way it's getting the attention both of the philosophers and the martial artists. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support merge. (change position to neutral pending further discussion. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)) The philosophy article hasn't become long enough yet to substantively cover the issue, doesn't have many references yet, and is in ways redundant to other articles like Nei jin and Neijia. Also, the article makes unreferenced conclusions about applying tai chi chuan to life. There are writings that do this, but they are not directly referenced here. There are other sources of philosophical underpinning at taiji, yin and yang (which mentions taiji symbol), Tao Yin, Neo-confucianism, etc. The philosophy of taijiquan is also mentioned in the main article, and discussed at length in the Wikiquote taijiquan article. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Note: I have done some pruning and made some additions to the article. The removed content was assertion by way of example as to how to apply tai chi principles to everyday life, which I feel a bit "how-to manual" in tone. If they can be reworded and referenced, then I don't mind them going back in. If we can get a passive article out of this it may end up changing my mind about the merge. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but feel the philosophy article needs to be changed. If anything, merge T'ai chi philosophy with Taiji. The philosophy is definitely distinct from the martial art. Only reason to merge would be that they share the name T'ai Chi, which is more or less accidental. While t'ai chi philosophy is the philosophical basis of t'ai chi chuan, it is older than and prior to t'ai chi chuan, and forms the philosophical basis for many other topics as well, including I Ching interpretation, Taoist meditation, TCM, etc. T'ai chi chuan could easily have developed a different name, but still be based on the philosophy of the Great Ultimate. Great Ultimate Boxing is based on the philosophy of the Great Ultimate; not the other way around. Unfortunately, the T'ai chi philosophy article does not in any way make clear the distinction. It seems to suggest that T'ai chi philosophy is derived from the martial art, rather than the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helikophis (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Currently too much overlap with other articles, including this one. VanTucky 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Change the reference to philosophy in this article to a see also link. 83.104.37.31 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)