The study of multiple styles

[nick_nameless]

I have seen a few topics on this subject, but having perused them I have not seen this question posed. Forgive me if this is an existing discussion, as I would gladly accept a redirect to that discussion.

In Mr. Rodell's Taiji Notebook there is an essay that discusses mixing styles. The essay suggests that mixing styles is not the preferrable way to study, particularly when mixing hard and soft style, and even more particularly when the prospective Taijiquan student already has significant background in a hard style.

I found this to be a curious viewpoint. From a practical point of view, this subject interests me because of my own persuit of differing skills in martial arts. I have been considering attending a seminar that Mr. Rodell is having at Stillmountain in Sommerville, MA. In my regular practice, albeit being a new taiji practitioner, I am studying at a different school. I believe the taiji I am studying to be Chen style, although it is not advertised as one style or another. The essay suggested that a practitioner of Chen style would be making a mistake in attempting to train Yang style as well. So after reading this essay I am questioning the logic in attending Mr. Rodell's seminar on taiji sword. I am not planning on giving up my current school, or switching to a Yang school. I was not planning on double studying as a matter of general course. I did think I might be interested in taking the occasional seminar as it was offered. I had not imagined that there might be some detriment to learning some new skill, technique, or mindset.

So, here I am hoping that the members of this community, and hopefully even Mr. Rodell might be interested in deepening this discussion. I would guess that most here spend their time because they are practitioners of Yang Style Taiji, regardless of if they study regularly with Mr. Rodell.

I would be curious as well to know what the thought process is behind the study of taiji and other arts, such as kungfu. At my school, the Shaolin Tai Chi Praying Mantis Institute in Avon, MA, my Sifu teaches both taiji and kungfu, and from what I understand they are treated somewhat together as a system. I also do some work in JSA, and had not really considered that the training might conflict or impair my learning of one or the other by studying both. I had thought someday of learning some Aikido as another form of internal art.

I approach most things with the mindset that there are no absolutes. I do not take Mr. Rodell's essays as the new taiji gospel, but I do respect the opinion of a studied man. It seems that this concept is not one that is his own, but one that has been owned by many before him, and one that he has made his own through practice. Any other thoughts on the voracity of this would be appreciated

[Tashi James]

Hi Nick, I have been a student of Laoshi Rodell, for around a year give or take, having ceased training in Arnis and another style of Taiji, personally I have found this indespensible. Yet also a challenge of new dimensions. In the Yang family lineage it has been common that this had been the case with some students also. Some were highly accomplished Xing Yi and Baguazhuang {other prominent internal styles} practitioners in there own right, when they wanted to train in this lineage they were told that they had to stop training in the previous style. This also would entertain cultural notions that are not a commonality in our western culture.

The point that Laoshi is making, in his book, as I understand it, is that to train in these differing methods. Whether in terms of Chen/Yang or Hard/Soft, is because one is training the ligiments, tendons and muscles, ie,.the physical mechanics. Not to mention the use of jin and qi circulation in a different manner, is to work at cross purposes. This may be more better illustrated when making comparisons between hard/soft styles, say kenporyu and taijiquan. Simply the way of using the body is different and the body regardless of the exercise martial or otherwise, always adapts to the stimuli of the movement, this is basic bio-physics.

Their are other reasons I can think of, yet I will see if anyone else has something to add.. {any mistakes are my own, my apologies}

with much kindness,
Tashi

[nick_nameless]

Hi James,

Thanks for your response. I do understand the point being made with respect to cross purposes. At he same time I had hoped to investigate it further and to hear of other's experiences. I find this idea interesting. I don't know that it is right or wrong, or absolute for all either way considering that different people have different abilities. My thought is that this could be true for many and yet not necessarily apply evenly to everyone. The fact is that I am approaching this logically, however, and do not have the taiji or general martial arts background to really make a seriously informed judgement.

It's funny that from an economic point of view, the best answer for Mr. Rodell would be to respond that I should try the seminar out, but from a point of view of his published teachings the best answer from him would be that I should not attend. And I write this as an attempt to define the irony of the situation, and not to try to catch a respected man in a pickle of words.

My personal view is that attending would give me the opportunity to be exposed to knowledge and experience that I would not otherwise have access to. And even as a contrast to what I am studying, I would surmise that this could be valuable. I would be interested to hear more life experiences of folks that have followed or ignored this principle, however, before I try and make a choice

[Tashi James]

Yes, and, that is how I began also. Same line of reasoning, in terms of of my experience I found it to be invaluable. But as you saqy each has his own capacity,.

Tashi

[Roland Tepp]

I am afraid you are overthinking here a bit.

It's funny that from an economic point of view, the best answer for Mr. Rodell would be to respond that I should try the seminar out, but from a point of view of his published teachings the best answer from him would be that I should not attend. And I write this as an attempt to define the irony of the situation, and not to try to catch a respected man in a pickle of words.

There is not conflict or contradiction here. From the strictly martial point of view, Laoshi Rodell has always pointed out that it is quite recommended to look at other martial arts so to understand better what is that they offer and see their strengths and weaknesses. It is studying multiple martial disciplines that is not recommended (although not necessarily prohibited either). And by looking, I don't necessarily mean standing on the side and observing peaople practicing other arts - sometimes the best way to get good understanding of a system is jump in, try it out and then after experiencing it firsthand, make an informed decision...

My personal view is that attending would give me the opportunity to be exposed to knowledge and experience that I would not otherwise have access to. And even as a contrast to what I am studying, I would surmise that this could be valuable. I would be interested to hear more life experiences of folks that have followed or ignored this principle, however, before I try and make a choice

At one point in life you will have to make a decision as to what are your goals in studying these arts. If this time creeps upon you (for it is never a hard cut choice that you have to stop to make) you'll know exactly what it is you need to concentrate your studies on.
It might as well be that you have not yet met a teacher that can teach you all that you need or found a system that offers you a complete set of skills. Until then, there is nothing really wrong with studying multiple arts - it is just that thus dividing yourself you will never reach the level of skill that can be described by the term gongfu so much misused in western literature.

Once you've found that teacher and that system, there is not really any question weather you can or can not learn multiple styles. You simply have made your choice.

[nick_nameless]

I am afraid you are overthinking here a bit.

There is not conflict or contradiction here. From the strictly martial point of view, Laoshi Rodell has always pointed out that it is quite recommended to look at other martial arts so to understand better what is that they offer and see their strengths and weaknesses. It is studying multiple martial disciplines that is not recommended (although not necessarily prohibited either). And by looking, I don't necessarily mean standing on the side and observing peaople practicing other arts - sometimes the best way to get good understanding of a system is jump in, try it out and then after experiencing it firsthand, make an informed decision...

Perhaps I did not state it clearly enough in my first post, so I will throw it out here again. I am not looking for another style. I like my school and my Sifu, and have no plans to make a change. I plan to study there a long time. I had looked at this seminar as a means of adding skills, gaining some familiarity with the Chinese longsword, and to possibly have some synergy with other things I am learning. The essay I read leads me to wonder if this might not necessarily be a good approach

At one point in life you will have to make a decision as to what are your goals in studying these arts. If this time creeps upon you (for it is never a hard cut choice that you have to stop to make) you'll know exactly what it is you need to concentrate your studies on.
It might as well be that you have not yet met a teacher that can teach you all that you need or found a system that offers you a complete set of skills. Until then, there is nothing really wrong with studying multiple arts - it is just that thus dividing yourself you will never reach the level of skill that can be described by the term gongfu so much misused in western literature.

Once you've found that teacher and that system, there is not really any question weather you can or can not learn multiple styles. You simply have made your choice.

This is the part I suppose I am looking to delve into further. I see that you are essentially agreeing with your teacher's views as published in the book. That is not unexpected or unreasonable. And it is the premise that "you simply have made your choice" that I am more than curious with. That insinuates that a person learning more than one skill learns them both "less", or that learning one skill might detract from the learning of another.

To put it another way, I would see this statement as being analagous to a claim that learning to play the piano would impede gaining mastery over playing the guitar. I can see the point of that in saying that the time spent learning piano could be spent getting better with the guitar. But I can also see the thought process that learning the piano would help to learn more about music, scales, chords, and how they are broken down. Does that make sense?

Thanks for taking the time to reply

[G-Man]

Hi nick,

I think your point with the guitar-piano metaphor is well-taken. I practice at GRTC in Washington, D.C., and there we practice two traditions of Yang style taijiquan, Zheng Manqing's public style and the Yangjia Michuan system, with that idea in mind. By studying two different forms that have a slightly different body mechanic, we arrive a stronger, deeper understanding of the principles and basic movements that make up Yang style taijiquan. That said, this arrangment depends on both traditions being the creation of one man, Yang Lu-Chan, which guarantees that both systems are aimed at developing the same gongfu. I personally am skeptical that the synergy or underlying insight you describe could be gained when practicing to two significantly different systems. To use another analogy, it might be like learning two very different languages, say Chinese and French. Would the general insight into grammar and language gained from the study of one help you with learning the other? Sure. But I wonder if the benefit is as tangible or significant as you suggest in the guitar-piano metaphor (I say this of course having only studied one martial art).

I also think we should try to avoid the trap of the "martial arts tourist". I have met people who are acquainted with a lot of techniques gained from many years of collecting forms and training with all sorts of teachers. However, I am always left wondering if these people really know the techniques they've studied in more than an intellectual way. My sanshou experience has taught me that even the most basic deflecting, striking, and stepping techniques need to be trained again and again and again in order for them to truly be part of my arsenal in a real confrontation. Intellectual understanding by itself is shallow and in some sense useless without extensive training to first acquire the technique in the body. Those who endlessly analyze a technique before having practiced it 1,000 times are, in my opinion, short-circuiting their own practice. So yes, I think intellectual insight gained from juxtaposing multiple styles could be a good thing, but it is far secondary to training the primary techniques in your chosen system and really owning them. And honestly, unless one lives a monastic lifestyle or is a full-time fighter, owning two different systems of fighting seems a near impossible project .

[nick_nameless]

That's an excellent response, G-man

I am not sure I share the viewpoint you are presenting, but I am not sure I don't either.

It is an interesting place, at least for me, to be right now. As I mentioned before I am a relatively new tiaji practitioner. I was shown some basics several years ago, and built upon them myself from some DVD study. I found that the things I learned in these exercises have helped me to learn the taiji I am currently studying significanlty faster than other new students.

These exercises were Yang style. Positions and moves like brush knee, single whip, play guitar, etc., are not so new to me, and having practiced these positions before has made some transitions easier to me. And then again, at this point I am only a "tourist" in any style, excepting that I have a few years background in a limited form of Okinawan karate. Perhaps this is why I find these things helpful, because I am not deep enough to see why they are not...?

Thanks for adding to the discussion

[Kyro R. Lantsberger]

I like the things that have been said here. I just wanted to add an observation or two.

There are a number of teachers within Nei Jia who teach different forms for certain purposes. Even the different arts will be taught for specific aims. Some teachers, for example, teach Hsing-I very hard, almost like Karate, with their Bagua a bit softer, and with their Tai Chi softer yet again.

Other teachers Ive noticed teach all three with basically the same degree of softness, but using each to emphasize different aspects of internal training.

With this being said. I have no problem with people studying multiple arts, but they just need to be aware of situations like this which vary from school to school. One may end up mix matching things that dont go together because each specific borrowed item is unrelated to the full instructional system it was taken from.

[Tashi James]

Okay before coming to Taijiquan I studyed in Kyokushin ryu karate, Iga ryu Ninjutsu, and Arnis

In terms of the study I've found a mindset training in taijiquan that differs to any of them. With exception of Arnis and Ninjustsu, I have found that the training only helped with certain stimuli when it came to confrontations, perhaps that is to do with how I was taught or my maturity, I'm not sure.

Arnis is a blade/stick fighting art of the Phillipines which has a high attack mentality and is like taijiquan in it's purist form not a sport {or health art}

One needs to relax ie fangsong in in Arnis to get the fluency and speed to execute movements. However that is where the simularity ends.

Taijiquan has the most sophisticates methods I've experienced, however Arnis has great co ordination methoods, yet is all in the arms with some waist, but not so much as taijiquan.

Coming to Taijiquan hasn't been too difficult, and some things such as picking up body mechanics and understanding applications has been easy. The concept of fajin, rooting and using more waist have been the hardest, and attention to posture, is different also.

As per fangsong, that hasn't been to difficult in practice, however I'm far from accomplishing it to the level that Laoshi has.

The hardest thing has been raising my level of alertness and shen in all moments, to have readiness. The old cat and falcon analogies lol

[Scott M. Rodell]

Greetings All-

Nick, welcome to our Forum & thanks for starting this thread...

For the sake of this discussion, I'll break down training into three areas:

Internal vs. External, Forms & Interactive Work (i.e. Tuishou, Sanshou, & Weapons Play)

I'll address each area separately because in relation to your questions, the answer in different in relation to each.

RE: Internal vs. External -
Contemporary practitioners are presented with a "modern" pop culture approach to martial arts. One commonly hears the about practicing hard & internal styles together as Yin & Yang balancing each other, etc.; about taking the best from a variety of arts... & so on. Frankly most of this is nonsense & demonstrates how far the arts have strayed from their roots.

Let us take a moment to remember that the great Masters didn't need to train in 10 different arts to achieve their greatness. In fact, almost without exception, none did this. Indeed, to copy the example of music above, the great virtuosos typically concenrate on one instrument. I like to use Jimmy Hendriks as an example. No one can play like he did. When you hear people who knew him talk about his playing, he always had a guitar in his hands, even while sitting on the toilet.

But more to the point, one can not spend half one's training time hardening the muscles with exercises designed to specifically to do so, then think the second half of the training one will let go of all that tension & be as soft as a cloud. No where in the Yang Family manuals is hard style training advocated. Indeed, external force is described as, "crude, easy to manipulate and not worthy of praise." Simply put, mixing hard & soft styles is misinformed & working at cross purposes.

RE: Forms -
I truely believe all traditional forms are good. I do not subscribe to the belief that one tradtional system is better than another. Some have things that others don't, or might be more "complete," but it is what one does with the forms, as tools for development that make one better of worse.

Having said this, students today collect forms like stamps. As if more & more was better. Let me relate a story that may get the point across: Some years ago my students & I went to a National Tournament & the students entered the Push Hands competition. Before that competition began, we were watching the forms & saw one guy do an unbelievably good Drunken Form. Trust me, I am not easily impressed, but I was by this preformance. This practitioner was in many events & changed his outfit for each. Later, he played one of my students in the Push Hands. My student beat him so easily that he was bored during the match. The next week at class, this student came to me & said, remember the guy who did the Drunked Form? I was talkng to him & he has been only pracitce 3 years & he knows ...." & a long list of forms followed. "So?" I replied. "Well I've been training 3 years & you only form you taught me is Zheng Manqing's form." "Yes, but do you realize that match where you were bored pushing hands was with that same guy?" He didn't, because that guy had changed to a very different suit. I reminded him that it was so easy that he was bored. Then I asked him point blank, "Do you want to have skill or lots of forms?" I'm sure you know the answer.

I'm not saying forms aren't good or very, very useful. But each time one learns a new form, it should be for expanding one's understanding & gongfu. And it takes time to extract this gongfu. So don't rush to learn more forms, take them on slowly & don't take too many. Stay in your own style for years. Then think about perhaps adding something.

RE: Interactive Work -
This is where one, when ready, should venture out of the one's home school. As was written above, one need to look at other martial arts, train with other systems. Not to learn all the forms & techniques, but to broaden one's view of the world. I've seen, & I'm sure other have, rank beginners beat experienced experts, simply because the beginner did something strange to the expert. My teacher, Wang Yennien, told me about how when he first arrived in Taiwan after the war, he & many other masters formed a club & trained together. That list of masters reads today like a who's who of Chinese Martial arts.

So if a good Chen, Wu, Sun etc, style teacher/senior student is teaching nearby I would encourage our seniors to attend the push hands & sanshou training. We all should play different people at different time. We can all help each other improve this way. I regularly see students of Chen style, Bagua Zhang, Shaolinquan, European Swordsmanship, Korean Swordsmanship, even Kenjitsu, at my Chinese Swordsmanship seminars. They are all welcome. Many become regular students & we train together for years. But I never suggest they change systems & learn our Yang Family Michuan Taijiquan system (Though some choose to). What I always suggest is that they steal from me all they can & invigorate their own systems & personal training with what they learned from me.

I hope this answers some questions & is of use to all...

[nick_nameless]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, Mr Rodell

I also want to say thanks to those participating in this thread for treating it like it was meant to be treated. I can easily imagine a circumstance under which a newcomer entered a forum with somewhat of a challenge to it's key member that was met by degnerative response. It seems you have a class group here

That said, I would like to say a little towards your response to the question. I think that I may have found my answer in thinking on the substance of your reply. I think this is a topic that could be discussed ad infinum with so many nuances and differing styles. It would be difficult to boil this question down to one answer fitting all.

I am not discounting your response in saying that. What I mean is to say that there is an amazing amount of learning to be done, and most people studying martial arts do not realize the depth to which they can actually learn an art and make it a part of themselves. Sihang has said to the class on numberous occasions that we train in programmed response to a technique not so that you will know what to do if an attacker throws that specific attack at you, but rather to make the techique your own and a part of yourself. Once it is your gongfu, you are free to do as you will with it.

In speaking of gongfu in the more literal sense, the sense of gongfu being skill, one could surmise that until a practitioner of an art has enough depth to begin contemplating making that art a part of himself, then he or she is just learning movements and coordination. It is in that time that an artist of a style or many styles could start to gain mastery over one.

For me, at this time I am trying to learn how to move my body well. If that means learning a zillion forms or 3, it doesn't matter as much as the self awareness of my body. I want to know that when I put my feet down intending to be in a ride stance or a bo stance, that they are actually there and that I do not need to think on it. I want to know that when I am supposed to bring my arm, empty or holding a sword, around at shoulder level that it is at shoulder level without having to think about it. Being able to repeat these skills across many forms is not necessarily a bad thing. At the same time, learning many forms or styles would impede my ability to commune with one, because of fragmented focus and a loss of time spent.

These are things that I knew when I started this thread, and in reading Mr. Rodell's response I find them again. The one thing I am not necessarily in sync with is not being able to mix hard and soft training, but then I do not have the level of background to say one way or another. At the very least my confidence is renewed that the path I am currently on is a good one for me, and feel a little better about attending the seminar as a benefit.

I am studying one art in earnest at the moment. That is at the Shaolin Tai Chi Praying Mantis Institute in Avon, MA. I study there 5 days a week. I do some JSA on Sunday, and have looked into doing some additional work on Saturday. Regardless of what other arts I spend some small amounts of time working on, I generally consider them to be dabbles as opposed to my main study. From this conversation I see no reason not to dabble, so long as I don't let it interfere with my main training

[Tashi James]

You're most welcome Nick,
Kind Regards,
Tashi

[josh stout]

This thread hits close to home for me. I have trained for over twenty years (my teacher says "then why aren’t you better" ) in a single Shaolin derived style. However, my teacher has the traditional Chinese dislike of weapons, so they form a very small part of my training. However, I hated to see a major portion of the martial tradition being relegated to a few forms and stories of the old days. When I found out about what Scott is doing I read what I could online about the theory, and then with my teacher's permission, I went to a seminar on sword technique. It completely changed the way I handled a sword. I don't think I learned any new movements, but I learned how to apply techniques in a much more realistic manner than before. I basically had to relearn sword technique, but this only deepened my abilities. This is an ongoing effort, and I plan to attend more seminars focusing on applications. I have much less interest in learning the forms. To really do the forms I would have to drop my own practice and concentrate on taiji. This would be confusing for my mind and body, and without a solid foundation in taiji practice, I doubt the effort would ever amount to much. Sword cuts and blocks on the other hand are remarkably similar from style to style, and I can improve them with Scott with only beneficial results to my own practice.
Josh

[Chris Fields]

Great topic. I personally have been training in Kun Tao Kung fu, southern style, not too well know, for about 17 years now. However, I have trained in many other styles, including Japanese swordsmanship, Tae kwan Do, karate, judo, akido, and bunch of others.

In my mind, the more you learn, the better. The more weapons you have under your belt, the more experience you will have. However, do not just learn it and forget it, or learn it and forget to practice it, if that is so, then you never really learned it to begin with. For example, the kicks from Tae kwan Do are very good, fast, powerful kicks. I use these when I spar sometimes when throwing kicks to the waist level or knee level. I teach these kicks as well, however, I also teach where they came from, and differences between our kung fu kicks and tae kwan do kicks. Not that one is better than the other, they are just different.