Dear Tai Chi Chuan Spring/Summer 2004
A recent newsletter to TCUGB members raised questions regarding structured training schemes and certification. Peter Arnold felt compelled to write on the subject:
Dear Tai Chi Chuan, I'm very interested in this subject. I signed up for the system you describe, paid my money, and then ..... nothing. That was several years ago, and I know that most of the responsibility for the situation rested with my former tutor, who encouraged me to sign up for it, but didn't follow it up. My own attempts to get in touch also failed.
I certainly think we need a clear system of coaching awards, which can give everyone involved in tai chi confidence in what is being offered.
The example I would use is another sport where I am a fully qualified coach at a fairly high level. The coaching syllabus is carefully structured so that people progress through the levels in accordance with their knowledge and experience. The syllabus is organised in such a way that people taking the qualifications know how much they have to do, and basically, the higher the grade, the more a prospective coach has to learn and be able to demonstrate they can do.
I accept that tai chi is not a competitive sport in the same sense that most other sports are, and so there will be different requirements depending on circumstances. But, and this is the point, there are some skills and knowledge which are common to all sports and physical activities, and it has been my belief for many years that all sports should follow a common syllabus which teaches people how to coach. The sport specific knowledge and skills can be handled differently, according to the sport. So, as far as tai chi is concerned, I believe that knowledge about how to take a class, how to vary the work to the level of the various participants, how to handle people effectively are all basic coaching skills which everybody in the sport should have first. I accept that a minimum knowledge and experience of tai chi forms will also be required to ensure that safe practices are followed. The criticism I had of the former scheme is that it emphasised tai chi knowledge but said very little about how to communicate that knowledge to others. In my view, the ability to coach effectively is just as important as technical knowledge. Both are essential requirements, and both should feature in any certification scheme. We should also be able to certify people who come from other coaching backgrounds and who can demonstrate an appropriate level of knowledge of tai chi before they are let loose on an unsuspecting public!
I would be willing to help in the development of such a scheme if it was decided to go ahead with one.
Peter Arnold
Dear Tai Chi Chuan,
For a long time now, I have put off writing something in this vein.Over the years I have watched Tai Chi grow, and, through the years have had many conversations with other teachers and practitioners. This letter is born out of these often frustrating conversations. What always seems to come up is the general state of Tai Chi, what are the standards, what is being taught and how. It has to be said it never feels too positive. Tai Chi is amorphous and too many do not know their own level. The beginning student has therefore, no chance of knowing anyone's level.
I'm not sure sometimes, whether there is tuition going on or exploitation. The beginner has no idea who is standing in front of them, posing as the teacher. They have to take on trust that this person has a sound knowledge of Tai Chi and is more than competent in the art. It appears to me that the general public are still quite ignorant as to what Tai Chi really is. For many, Tai Chi is Tai Chi and all teachers are the same. This state of affairs, has been a Godsend to those who wish to exploit it. A few examples of the type of things might throw some light on what I mean.
For instance, students being asked to attend special courses teaching the forms mirror image.Teaching this, as though it were some specialised knowledge of the teacher, is ridiculous, and students should not fall for it. This is something, that with some time and effort, can be done on your own. I encourage my students to practice on the opposite side, as it is a good practice. But a "special course" - I don't think so! Everyone that I know who can do mirror forms have taught themselves. Teaching something learned from a video, and then having the audacity to question students, which exercise affects which organ of the body. We can all do this for the price of the same video. Learning from a video and being taught are quite different. The students should find out where the teacher aquired this knowledge.
Discouraging students from visiting other teachers. A look at some publications will show that many teachers had more than one teacher, in this day and age no-one should feel limited. I had only one teacher, and even he said that I should try something else to compare with what I was taught by him. I never felt the need. Many, have had a variety of different teachers. I suppose it preserves the bank book. Using Tai Chi and using students in this way should have no place in Tai Chi.
A recent incident is also quite telling. A student was asked if he would like to push hands. He said that "his teacher probably would not be happy if he were to do this". This is Tai Chi isn't it? It does have pushing hands doesn't it? What is the problem? Has the teacher no knowledge of this aspect? So does the student have to be limited too? Yet another Tai Chi "master" who can't do pushing hands? Why Tai Chi is subject to this precious nonsense is a question I've often asked myself. It would be hard to imagine this kind of attitude in a Karate or Judo class. You would soon be found out. But, in Tai Chi, packed as it is with "wonderful" teachers, it can take a very long time to realise that you have been led down the wrong road. You may think you are making progress under such a teacher, and are probably encouraged to believe that this is the case. It is difficult when you may be quite close to the teacher, to then find out how much is actually poor stuff. It is a bitter pill to swallow. Cast your net wider and have a look around.
I recently had a conversation with a serious Judo player. He told me that he had taken some classes in Tai Chi. Although he was very polite, it was obvious his experience of Tai Chi wasn't what it could have been, and therefore didn't think too much of it. For this Judo player, his first experience might well be how he preceives whole of Tai Chi to be.
I have recently taken some time out from teaching, and have had the oportunity to look over a couple of video's that have come my way. What I saw was very depressing. It was an example of how far Tai Chi can drift and become distorted, something almost comical if it wern't so sad. But again do the students know this? If they are led to believe that they are advancing in Tai Chi, it is extremely hard. Maybe, they are becoming good at bad Tai Chi, and do not realise it. Then, no doubt they will be out teaching, and when the Tai Chi is of a poor standard there will be further drifting.
Tai Chi deserves better representation than this. Not everyone that stands in front of a class is a good teacher. Time spent in the art is no guarantee of ability. I remember being told by an individual that he went full time because he enjoyed it. Well, I enjoy playing the saxophone but, I have the good sense not to inflict it on anyone. If Tai Chi were music, much of it would be more than a little out of tune. The only thing that matters is what the teacher can do, and how well. Nothing else. After all it is only the teachers that can really have long term effects upon Tai Chi and the direction it takes in the future. Think ten years down the road, and ask, "What state is the Tai Chi I'm passing on going to be in?" We should be our own severest critics.
You all, by now get my drift, so I do not have to go on. There is no joy writing something like this, but I think issues such as the above should be aired. If anyone can recognise any of the above, then ask some questions. It is your time and money after all. And, it is Tai Chi that matters in the end. Yours in Tai Chi Chuan.
Ian Cameron.
Dear Tai Chi Chuan,
In the last issue Ronnie Robinson expressed a ".....grave concern about the future of the internal arts when there are so many opportunities to 'dip in' to something as opposed to spending serious time really getting to the heart of things". He then expressed an interest in hearing how others feel about his concerns. I hope my contribution will stimulate further the debate that I think Ronnie may have intended to spark.
Taking an opposite view to Ronnie, I have great enthusiasm about the future of internal arts. Access is widening and more people are having the opportunity to 'dip in' to an activity that is gaining wider acceptance as a useful contribution to health oriented lifestyle. In my view you don't need to have toiled for years under a linage master to have the skill and knowledge to teach simple safe and effective tai chi based exercise for health. I'm not talking about teaching tai chi chuan as a profound and effective martial art and/or pathway towards spiritual development, both of which require a very high level of instructional expertise that demands many years of study under high-level supervison. Neither would I seek to undermine the rich cultural heritage and the breadth and depth of knowledge preserved, and continuing to be developed, in the traditional schools. Although I do think that those who insist on strict compliance with the cultural trappings and vocabulary of traditional Chinese martial and medical paradigms do little to help demystify what is essentially an excellent gift to humanity.
My position is that of wishing to promote tai chi and chi kung as accessible, safe and effective approaches to exercise for health. At such a level teachers should be competent to instruct a safe and effective class that meets the needs of participants. These needs are often simply to enjoy a pleasing and gentle workout for the mind and body, much in the way that thousands of people have attended yoga classes for decades without aspiring to become enlightened yogis, ascetics or sages.
I've never visited China, but I suspect that most of the millions of people who practice tai chi in the Orient do so simply as part of a health promoting and health preserving lifestyle; essential in a country where most people cannot afford medical services whether Traditional Chinese or Western Medicine. I'd be surprised if all those millions have access to lineage masters, or are particular devotees of the martial and/or spiritual traditions. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect most tai chi in China is probably taught at a relatively superficial level 'for health' rather than in the context of striving to achieve martial excellence and/or spiritual enlightenment. Nevertheless, this 'shallow' tai chi can be very safe and effective physical and mental exercise, offering considerable health benefits. Indeed, the clinical evidence for tai chi practice improving balance and co-ordination and preventing falls in the elderly are now widely recognised, as are the wider health benefits comparable with other approaches to exercise for health. Of course there will be a significant minority of people who, after dipping a toe in the shallows, will want to wade into the deeper more challenging and infinite pool of knowledge and experience that awaits those with the capacity and commitment to aspire towards higher level learning. Most however, will be happy to continue 'paddling' in the shallows. I think this growing and largely silent majority of 'low level' tai chi practitioners have the potential to make a major contribution to helping stabilise this nation's economic position. As the population continues to age, the demands on, and hence cost to, the National Health Service will increase exponentially. Aging people who adopt healthy lifestyles are likely to remain independent for longer, and particularly those who incorporate tai chi into their daily routine will be less likely to fall and suffer the kind of injury that can spiral downward into resource expensive dependence on medical and social services. Unfortunately, while the medical professions are gearing up for 'exercise on prescription' and can refer to a growing national register of NVQ qualified 'quality assured' exercise professionals covering a very broad spectrum of health related exercise, no such register exists for tai chi instructors. As a consequence GPs will find it difficult to recommend tai chi with the kind of confidence they will be able to refer people for conventional strength, flexibility or cardiovascular exercise.
In my view the UK Tai Chi Community shares the problems of many martial arts and alternative therapies, including: organisational fragmentation fuelled by an insularity, 'empire building' and the competitive marketplace, plus a lack of resource (time, energy, enthusiasm and hard cash) to establish an effective National Governing Body. Watching from the sidelines, the TCUGB are, without doubt, doing an exceptionally good job, as is the Tai Chi and Chi Kung Forum for Health and Special Needs - as far as they go. However, there is an urgent need for a nationally recognised verifiable standard for safe and effective Tai Chi instructor accreditation to cover the 'exercise for health' sector. Maybe there is scope for TCUGB to accelerate this process by starting a dialogue with the National Register for Exercise Professionals.
Colin Hughes