Kumite and traditional karate question

[bushido_man96]

Tai Chi is definitely a martial art, it's just that it's most often taught, at least in the US, for non-MA reasons.

There are Tai Chi moves that break bones. I can find in a form I learned for my art, Soo Bahk Do, Chil Sung Ee Ro Hyung, certain Tai Chi-based moves that, as one interpretation goes, breaks the opponent's two-handed grip, has you grab his arms to set him up, and then comes the kick. Another is to break his grip, and then seize his head while ramming your thumbs into his eyes. Still another is to break his grip, seize his arms, then cross them in such a way as to bend one elbow the wrong way--crunch! (The funny thing is that it's not what's taught in the Soo Bahk Do form; it's taught as a lapel grab and choke. It's because I studied Tai Chi that I recognized the applications.) The two-man form that I did with a friend in the past had lots of nasties and counters in it.

It'll depend on your instructor, and even attending seminars.

I agree with Joe's assessments here. It will depend on how it is taught, and to what ends. Some Tai Chi isn't taught much different than a slower version of Cardio Kickboxing, and some is taught with the impetus of self-defense in mind.

[NightOwl]

Tai Chi is definitely a martial art, it's just that it's most often taught, at least in the US, for non-MA reasons.

IT certainly can be, but it isn't always. Taichi was largely transformed from a martial art to an exercise by the Chinese; largely in the past century. In fact you are probably more likely to find old fashioned taichiquan outside of mainland China if you are looking for martial applications.

Taichiquan masters were gathered to create forms for exercise as China moved into the modern age, and as a result taichi is a hugely popular form of single or group calisthenics in China even to this day. The ultra slow pace and a lot of the wide movements are not from the original chen style, but were added on with no consideration for martial application at all.

The very few times I have seen taichiquan in action, it has looked similar to grappling styles like shuai jiao. It is jarringly different from what you see in parks on a Saturday morning.

----------------

I tend to agree with Bushido_man. Too many martial artists tend to forget that there are two sides to Japanese martial arts. The do and the jutsu. We practice the jutsu, but only to get to the do, and forget the jutsu upon reaching the do. Confusing, but basically, we practice the techniques to get a deeper understanding of things. Yet, once we've reached this deeper understanding, we forget that what we practice has a practical application. That application is supposed to be deadly. To learn martial arts is to learn how to kill. That's the entire basis. The do simply helps someone reconcile themselves with the fact that they are now a killer.

I would disagree that the vast majority of the Japanese arts people practice contain purposefully lethal techniques. Traditionally in japan to kill someone you'd stab or shoot them, preferably when they are not looking. As such older japanese martial arts styles favor just as much if not more armed as opposed to unarmed training. 'Yawara" (soft) or what later became known as 'jujutsu' started blooming after the warring states period and during the relative peacetime of the Edo era. In other words unarmed techniques were developed when civil as opposed to martial conflict became the norm. If you wanted to learn how to kill someone during this time, you'd study dueling with a sword and not how to put them in a lock as they were stabbing you.

True a choke, break, or throw can be devastating and can be made deadly, but it's not the most efficient way to kill someone and it wasn't meant to be. Lethal unarmed techniques are foolish for a situation calling for such force unless you are caught unprepared. Thus there are some 'killing' techniques, but by and large you are threatening at the most serious injury.

This holds for martial arts in other countries as well. Although Japan is a major exception, by and large most truly 'deadly' arts died out as cold weapons fell out of favor and modern weaponry stepped in. What resulted is that only the martial arts designed for civil life really continued to thrive. Many times these styles had weapons training included as well, but most kung fu or karate schools for instance (if they want to be practical for self defense) focus more on the unarmed stuff as opposed to staff or blade training.

----------------------------

To get to the original post- I would say that sparring or 'aliveness' is essential for good martial arts training in the truest sense, but if you are looking for just exercise/a cultural experience then I think that changes a lot of things. I wouldn't take wushu to learn how to fight, but as a form of exercise/gymnastics I think that it is awesome (and something that I would highly recommend). Another option if you want to go Japanese is iado or kenjutsu- lots of culture and pretty neat IMO.