Posted by bruce ching on December 31, 1998 at 06:00:30:
In Reply to: hello! new to this board and seeking advice/discussion posted by rick on December 30, 1998 at 18:58:09:
I’ll have a go at biting the baited hook.
: as a long-time student of the arts I understand levels of
: interpretation or implementation are virtually limitless within a coherent
: formal system. human nature being what it is, different groups, or families,
: decide that "this is the thing" that makes the system great, and
: therefore they emphasize that thing in training. as long as this
: continues, martial knowledge will always increase, new areas will be explored,
: and ancient knowledge can be better applied. stagnation of this process would
: effectively turn formal systems into dead languages.
It’s a good point. But there’s also the countervailing consideration that
the decision of “_this is the thing_” can become reductio ad absurdam;
what had been emphasis can, over the course of a few generations, become
viewed as be-all and end-all. Some schools, e.g., have held that fixed-step
push hands is the only interactive method of training taijiquan for combat.
: my very limited experience with students of internal gung fu leads me to the
: conclusion that internal chinese styles are the most resistant to new
: interpretation. understand this is based on a few conversations with
: acquaintances who cross-trained in hung-gar and tai chi, a fellow who studied
: tai chi exclusively, and one who trained in 5-animal style and philipino arts.
Considering the proliferation of taijiquan styles and substyles in the last
few decades, why do you see resistance to new interpretation?
: among you here, how many consider themselves progressive students, and how
: many think that the heights have already been attained, and that your lot is
: simply to follow the path left to you by masters long dead?
Unfortunately, the historical trend indicates that “masters long dead” were
indeed better at the art than masters who died recently, who in turn
collectively were probably better than the current standard. (Robert
W. Smith made this point in comparing Yang Luchan to Yang Chengfu
to Cheng Man-ch’ing.) Given an understanding of what’s being trained,
more training time means better development of skill. Modern weapons
take away much of the utility that the traditional martial arts previously had.
For individuals, no one specializing in empty hand or spear combat will obtain
a position equivalent to trainer of palace guards like Dong Haichuan (baguazhang)
or Yang Luchan (Yang taijiquan). For larger groups, defense of a
community is similarly less dependent now on empty hand, spear, or broadsword
training.
Innovation certainly can be a good thing, but -- as with other arts -- innovation
in taijiquan and other internal martial arts is probably best done by those who have
first mastered the traditional “interpretations.” Otherwise, the innovation
is being done by the unqualified.
- bruce ching