JerryLove

I don't have exact dates on when Akido and Judo were actually invented; but the arts and artists involved are both contemporary. I don't believe Judo is precursor to Akido.

But what makes you believe that you are discussing the same thing anyone else is? You seem to be making pu a definition for Ki rather than looking at what it is and does.

Sevenstar Maryville, TN - Richard Clear (admittedly I'm biased, he is my teacher). He was doing neijia long before he started in Silat, and still teaches them. https://www.clearsilat.com

I don't know about VA but I know a very good Xing-yi guy in TN

I believe the term for that is "empty force" and it is very common in Taiji. However, I would consider it an exaggeration to say that empty force is what Taiji is "all about"; and I'm surpised to hear that from a Chen practitioner in particular.

Actually, someone deliberately entering a situation (police and usually security) are under more restrictive rules for use of force than civillians... though this varies very heavily by juristiction, and it would be irresponsable to attempt to tell someone the legal requriements online as there is no single set.

So if I hit you as hard as I can, with as much correctness and skill as I can, and with full "commitment"; I won't hurt you because I don't want to? Is that your assertion?

"it is a plus if it helps you put the guy flat on his stomach so you can cuff him " You are misquoting... and please try to use full sentances. No one told it to me, that's why I didn't say it. I can see you know very little about reading. BJJ was your number one choice. BJJ is well known for choking. You are failing to read the sentance properly.

Interesting that you pick an art known for being on bottom, being on the ground, and choking as the #1 choice (you did qualify) fo someone who needs to avoid chokes, stay off the ground, and be in the top position.

I agree: Judo and most any of the "similar" wrestling arts.

How is it different from real? What makes this not a fight?

What would happen if John Woo directed Dances with Wolves? This movie

I could speculate, but I could not answer with any real assurance of accuracy. If you've ever felt what performing Chen style Tiaji does to you energetically compared to other styles (such as Yang), you'd easily find reasons you would prefer the latter. IOW doing Chen tends to make me feel "off"... violent, powerful, but off. It sounds like a wives tale; but I don't have enough information personally to answer. I do know that one reason my instructor got into Taiji was because he felt that starting an art that was not inherently very difficult to continue doing would result in a higher level of skill than starting with a more youthful art and then migrating; or trying ot maintain an art that really doesn't lend itself to being older.

Actually, I'm guessing his post is simply flame-bait.

Well, it's note-worthy that we can trace all the modern styles back to Chen style; and we can approximate a date on Chen. If there are precursor styles which are still "Taichi", then they appear to have disappeared. The short version is that the concept that all Chinese martial arts originate with one figure is pre-facia preposterous; so I tend to discount all Boddidharma stories right up front. While I know that the pre-Chen history (if there is any) is unknown; I can speak directly to how Taichi fights... and while someone may be able to come on with more knowledge and *add* to what I can state; I can still categorigcally affirm that Taichi is quite capable, willing, and designed to attack... The thought that it is somehow a defense-only art is a myth.

Please God, save me from the Bodidharma crap coming up *again*! By some accounts, disciplines similar to Taichi were practiced in China over 2000 years ago, before gradually evolving into fixed postures and movements that became the forms of Taichi. There are several accounts of the origin of Taichi, but none of them can be proven true or false since many authoritative sources have been lost. The most widely held view, however, appears to be that the techniques of Mr. Chen Wan Ting were eventually "softened" by Jiang Fa, who taught Chen Zhang Xing (1771-1853) of Chen Jia Gou village, during the Ching Dynasty. The problem here is that such an appeoach would be entirely yin. Another false claim (I'm trying to just hit the big ones). Taiji forms are always practiced slow (well, except for some Chen forms); it's not practiced faster as a fighting art.

Then there is neccessairily no such thing as a complete fighter.

King-fu: a skill developed with effort over time Wushu: War art (any combative skill) Taijiquan: Grand nexus boxing - a combative art developed with effort over time. Taiji is both a Wushu and a Kung-fu. In common vernacular hoewever, "Wushu" is a particular, state-sanctioned art; and Taiji would not qualify as "Official Wushu". In common vernacular "kung-fu" means "Chinese martial art" and Taiji does qualify. And for the record, Taiji most certainly does attack... would be really hard to spar without attacking. Want a really basic example? Fa a punch from (say) single-whip.

Is this an advantage? Wouldn't the things that got dropped be the ones that did not work? How important is it to box and wrestle simultaniously as opposed to having to switch gears? I can't quantify it, but I would think it was rather important. I did not claim you could not switch; merely that you would have to. In the example, your drop your hands for a shoot and get nailed in the head because your wrestling shoot doesn't cover you from being struck. In your WC+grappling example? Stance comes to mind. Want to sprawl to avoid the takedown? WC's power base is removed. Want to staw in WC's rooted position? There goes much of your grapling leverage work. Got a solution that resolves both? Why not teach them as a comprehnsive single art? Please rememer, I am not criticizing cross-training, nor roundness, nor claiming that people cannot combine arts themselves... I'm asking what the advantage of taking two seperate arts is over taking one which combines the two arts you were going to take and combine anyway... why reinvent the wheel?

It's done slowly for correctness.

I mean that if if you decide to study multiple arts seperately in order to be round, you have less cohesion in your training thatn you should get from studying a single, rounded art. For example. You want to have grappling and striking skills so you take wrestling and boxing. But the boxing stance doesn't let you grab like you want to from wrestling, and leaves you open for a takedown; conversely, your wrestling stance doesn't guard you well from punches; and neither will teach you the transitions. So now you have to blend these two arts together to do what you do. Now, you could tkae what you have learned and teach "wrestleboxing"; but then you would be teaching a single art, rather than seperatlely. I know what the advantage of learning both skills in one art is; the issues of cohesions have alreasy been worked out for you and tested and improved... what is the advatage of taking wrestling and boxing seperately instead of taking wrestleboxing?

No. I mean Taiji is a fighting art indegenous to China. Taijiquan (Grand Nexus Boxing) is one of the three major Niejia (Internal martial arts) of China. The fact that people teach Taiji as something else is similar to the fact that there is "cardio boxing" which takes stuff from boxing and makes the martial sport into simply and aerobic exercise. That said, I cannot comment intelligently on what you are looking at, as I have not seen it... but Tiaji is a martial art.

Taiji is a kung-fu. What is your question?

For the proponents... what do yo ufeel is the advantage of taking (say) three base arts over combining the three into one and taking that. I know what you loose; you loose cohesion. What do you feel you gain?

I think a guy with a 20% height advantage (and, by extension, almost a 100% weaight advantage if he's only porportinal) would get my attention; and I am a martial artist.