Tai Chi and combat effectiveness

[dwarf2]

I practice tai chi long form yang and we link all the moves together and it is like a giant kata. If you loose your train of thought then we start over. The movements when done for what they really do are really dangerous . Yang lu chan was considered a great fighter, and it wasn't because he pushed people down , He used the form on them and they didn't get up.

[Medway Tai Chi Society]

Yang lu chan was considered a great fighter, and it wasn't because he pushed people down , He used the form on them and they didn't get up.

I disagree.

Yang Luchan was considered a great fighter because he accepted challenges to fight, and by all accounts, never lost a match.

He didn't "use the form" on them. The idea of "using the form" on someone means you are instantly inviting defeat.

The form is a set sequence of movements that should be used as a form of neigong, as a method of training basic principles of practice, as a method of training the 13 principles, and as a catalogue of example fighting techniques of the particular style of Tai Chi.

The ultimate goal is formlessness. Every movement should become martial through being powered by the 13 principles.

[dwarf2]

You have to know how to use tai chi to win and if he did not know how to use it he would have lost. In our generation we saw gracies take on so called great fighters and destroy them in a heart beat, made it look like they did not know how to fight at all . One, they developed there skill while fighting. So when they put there fighter in the ring, he did not have to be the best in there family, just better than all the fighters in the octagon. So i stand on my statement ,and i would add yang luchan was a peasant, and he had already studied other arts before he studied with the chen family and this is probably one of the reasons why his tai chi looks so different from the chen style.

[deckerdude]

I would respectfully suggest to the many people that think that Tai Chi is for the elderly, (as a form of excersise promoting good health and vitality in the later years of their lives), and has no combative use to it, that it is in fact one of THEE most deadly of the Martial Arts. Not for nothing is it called the 'Grand Ultimate Fist'!

[deckerdude]

Also may i say, because i forgot in my last post, (!), that Tai Chi can be a really good ''crosstrainer'' for other Martial Arts styles such as Karate.

[JusticeZero]

Not for nothing is it called the 'Grand Ultimate Fist'!

I hear this a lot..

My understanding of the translation of the term is that the word being translated into "ultimate" is not so much "maximum; decisive; conclusive: the ultimate authority; the ultimate weapon", but rather either "basic; fundamental; representing a limit beyond which further progress, as in investigation or analysis, is impossible: the ultimate particle; ultimate principles" or "last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series: the ultimate point in a journey; the ultimate style in hats." (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ultimate) - either "The most fundamental i've been able to break it down to" or "the tips of a pole" instead of "best".

[deckerdude]

@JusticeZero: People who hear this a lot usually hear it because it is said a lot, by many other people who hear it a lot also!

Truth be known sir, you probably have more Martial Arts experience than me, i only started Shotokan Karate late last year, the same with Tai Chi. So i bow to your experience in such things BUT.....i stand by what i said.

Tai Chi IS one of thee most deadliest of all the Martial Arts and whether it is called 'grand ultimate fist' or 'ultimate fist' or whatever it is called, a dictionary does not do it the justice that is required for this most noble of Martial Arts.

Have a nice day sir.

[bushido_man96]

Tai Chi IS one of thee most deadliest of all the Martial Arts and whether it is called 'grand ultimate fist' or 'ultimate fist' or whatever it is called, a dictionary does not do it the justice that is required for this most noble of Martial Arts.

Just out of curiosity, how is the above statement quantified? Are there numbers to sustain the claim? How was the conclusion drawn? What are the other 2 styles that are deadly? I don't know if you were told this is the case, or read it somewhere, or if it is merely an opinion, but I doubt the statement can be backed up by pure fact.