TaiJi for Self Defence 11

Lost and Found

Having examined how martial arts and in particular TaiJi got lost as a practical martial art, it’s time to look at how we can find it again. I don’t want to go over old ground and several aspects of this question have been looked at in some depth in my previous blogs, both in this (self defence) series and the previous form collector series. What I want to do in this post is to look at how you can make sense of the applications held inside your form.

To start to make sense of your form the first thing that needs to be done is to discard what is not useful (© Bruce Lee) acknowledge and address your own confirmation bias, as mentioned in a previous post, by developing a critical eye.

Developing a critical eye and applying sensible real world analysis to the content of your form(s) is essential, so be honest with yourself about what you have been taught and how you understand the form’s applications. You have to ask a few simple questions in relation to each posture and proposed application:

1. Can you envisage utilising this technique, as it was taught to you, in a live situation where your safety is threatened?

2. Is there an easier, safer way of doing the same thing?

3. If the explanation of a certain application involves multiple attackers (very common), does it require the attackers to stand in specific locations or wait to attack in order? If the answer is yes, it should be obvious that the explanation is wrong. Excluding cinema, attackers don’t wait in line.

4. If the explanation involves a supposed attack from the rear, does the technique require the attacker to wait while you turn to face them and are they in range of your counter without you having to step towards them after you have turned? If they are in your range before you turn, then you are obviously in their range, so why are they waiting and why don’t they attack you from behind?

These are few simple filters that can be applied, although the questions are easy in theory they can be difficult to apply and answer because you may very well have been taught these applications by somebody you know and trust. This is the battle of confirmation bias.

Here are a few examples that I’ve had to address:

1. Step Back Ride The Tiger, this was explained as a defence against two people, one facing you and the second a little off to your right. The idea being the front facing assailant kicks to your mid section and you catch their kick with your left hand, at this point the patient second attacker punches you towards your head, you pivot to the right and parry / catch their punching hand. You then kick the second person, meanwhile the first person is stood on one leg waiting for something, though I’m not sure what.

2. Turn Body Pressing Kick. This technique requires the practitioner to pivot through 180’ on one leg and then kick out horizontally with the other leg. First of all in any conflict standing on one leg and spinning is asking for trouble, but the core of the problem rather like the example above what is the attacker doing while you elegantly spin around before you kick them? They are in your range, so you are in theirs.

3. Another similar example is Turn Body and Kick, this involves doing a backward crossing step and spinning close to 360 degrees on both feet, returning back to where you started and then kicking out! In this format the technique defies all logic or rationalisation.

I was able to clarify all of these and several more dubious techniques with a little research. For example the image below is of two Okinawan Karate practitioners performing something very close to Step Back Ride The Tiger. It is also similar to Step Back Repulse Monkey (hands in transition not in the final position). In this sequence either the leg grab or hand attack could be first and the other technique is a follow up by the attacker and a second defensive response.

Having analysed the techniques in your form and modified or discarded certain troublesome postures, it’s time to start adding context to each posture. Firstly it should be understood that there are several short sequences where a case can be made for one technique naturally following the previous one, but that is not always the case and you should avoid creating unlikely scenarios to justify one techniques place in a sequence. Remember the forms have gone through endless editing and modifications so there will be occasions when logic may not apply, if indeed it ever did!

To illustrate the point about forms evolving over time, I’ve inserted a few youtube links to examples of the Wu style form, the first one being the earliest, dating back to when the Wu style was still based in Beijing, probably 1920’s and probably before it was known as Wu style and would still have been referred to as Yang Small Frame and before it went through a major standardisation and simplification process.

The second is from 1937 featuring Chu Minyi a close early disciple of Wu Jianquan, here we see something more closely resembling TaiJi as we know it today.

The third features Cheng Wing Kwong (Zheng Rongguang), probably in the early 1950’s, a direct later disciple of Wu Jianquan based in Hong Kong and in it we see a form that, in its content, is essentially the same as we see today.

The fourth features Cheng Tin Hung (Zheng Tianxiong) mid 1960’s, nephew and student of Cheng Wing Kwong. The two Chengs are part of my lineage.

Cheng Tin Hung is showing a slightly larger frame than his uncle but otherwise largely the same. However one thing all four have in common is that none of them had yet reached the point of slowing down into a form purely of meditation. The forms are all performed at a relatively brisk walking pace.

In the next post I’ll close the series with some comments on how to interpret the form postures utilising the strategies and tactics outlined in the TaiJi Classics.