The absurdity of Single Whip

[GrahamB]

The recent topic on Single Whip got me thinking.

Even when demonstrated by the practical, hardcore, or no-nonsense tribe of Tai Chi practitioners, it's a pretty absurd fighting application. That's just my opinion, so feel free to reject it, but to be honest, a lot of Chinese martial art is pretty absurd, when it comes to fighting applications ("Monkey steals the peach!", anyone?)Even the ruthlessly practical styles have a few applications that are aways on the edge, but anyway...

I was picking up on this old post my Segler's all-time favourite internal strength adept:

http://mikesigman.blogspot.co.uk/2012/1 ... ement.html

"Silk-Reeling and the Taiji of Yin-Yang

There are two basic martial-arts postures in Asian martial-arts: Open and Close. In “Close” there is stress inward along the front of the body and the inward parts of the limbs; the knees and elbows and the joints bend and are generally under contractile forces of the front. Wing Chun’s basic stance, Uechi Ryu karate’s basic stance, “Play PiPa” (in Taiji), the closed aspect of “Squatting Monkey” (in Dai Family Xinyi), and in many other martial arts can be found variations of the Closed position of stances.

In “Open” the expansive forces from the back of the body and the outsides of the limbs pull the knees and elbows outward and the body lengthens, joints opening. Postures like “Single Whip” exemplify Open. In classically correct postures there is always a balance of the forces of Close and Open or Yin and Yang."

So, if the point of practicing a Tai Chi form is to get used to going from open to closed in a sequence of postures, perhaps it becomes less relevant what those postures are. Of course, this implies that the form isn't really for fighting, and that it's for teaching a body method, which you then use in fighting... which means that the "fighting" probably doesn't look any different to regular "fighting", whatever that may be....

Anyway, food for thought.

[chenyaolong]

What's so absurd about Monkey Steals the Peach? You grab the opponents neck and pull it down while kneeing them.

[neijia_boxer]

I do not view single whip as absurd in the way I've been taught it over the years:
1. as a wedge for splitting an opponent similar to a Jab in boxing.
2. Various Qin-na uses to wrist, elbow, shoulder, and head control.
3. At least two throws.
4. Also within it are other variations of the Ba-men and Wu Bu (13 techniques):
pung, lu , ji, an, tsai, lieh, zhou, kao, zhong ding, chang jin, hou tui, you pan, zhou qu.

...but i am of the school of thought that fighting with Tai chi does not have to look like the tai chi form. That perception is for idiot posers who do not understand the first thing about fighting.

[GrahamB]

I do not view single whip as absurd in the way I've been taught it over the years:
1. as a wedge for splitting an opponent similar to a Jab in boxing.
2. Various Qin-na uses to wrist, elbow, shoulder, and head control.
3. At least two throws.
4. Also within it are other variations of the Ba-men and Wu Bu (13 techniques):
pung, lu , ji, an, tsai, lieh, zhou, kao, zhong ding, chang jin, hou tui, you pan, zhou qu.

...but i am of the school of thought that fighting with Tai chi does not have to look like the tai chi form. That perception is for idiot posers who do not understand the first thing about fighting.

Which begs the question... what's the point of doing the form then, if the application is nothing like the form? Why not just make the form exactly like the actual application?

[GrahamB]

What's so absurd about Monkey Steals the Peach? You grab the opponents neck and pull it down while kneeing them.

I think I prefer your version.....

[chenyaolong]

Dont forms make techniques more complicated for the sake of training the body to a greater degree and giving you more scope for variety of applications?

[chenyaolong]

What's so absurd about Monkey Steals the Peach? You grab the opponents neck and pull it down while kneeing them.

I think I prefer your version.....

But in my version you dont get to dress up like a ninja! We all know a big part of martial arts is fancy dress

[Finny]

Just as an outsider looking in, but having spent years training wc, we were taught that the forms are like a 'principle alphabet' - not as applied, and not even necessarily training the particular movement required for any given technique; in other words, if I was applying the same approach, 'single whip' (from what I've seen) would be any movement which involved the opening of the arms/chest/kua/legs.. and I can imagine a few 'applications' of that type of movement. I thought that was the point? The form provides the 'alphabet' movement 'type', which may be applicable in a variety of circumstances, and look a variety of different ways, but will nonetheless still retain the essence or principle outlined in the form?

[Finny]

And yeah, that classic image jumped straight to mind reading your post - hahaha thanks for the laugh

now if only somewhere i could find the 'decision' essay...

[chenyaolong]

I think the purpose of forms in Wing Chun tends to be more abstract than other styles.

[chenyaolong]

And yeah, that classic image jumped straight to mind reading your post - hahaha thanks for the laugh

now if only somewhere i could find the 'decision' essay...

I guess Im not old enough to remember books like that

[Finny]

I think the purpose of forms in Wing Chun tends to be more abstract than other styles.

Mm.. kinda the point i was trying to make - and perhaps Graham? If you view single whip as necessarily being applied as practiced in the form.. it's .. not intelligent. why not take the abstract approach?

[MaartenSFS]

Fuck me, there are many crazy useful applications from Danbian and most of the other techniques from the forms. They don't always look 100% the same but the Jin is the same. I agree that fighting with Taiji (or other styles of CMA) doesn't always look exactly like the forms, but it sure as Hell doesn't look like Sanda.

[Ba-men]

Interesting

IMO part of the problem is that many never have been taught by someone who is experienced in pugilism and actually know the material. If your are experienced much of the applications you see concerning TCMA on the internet are bunk. Most of the application are made up,fictitious or S.W.A.G.'ed (i.e. Scientific wild ass guessed at.) Either they are way to clever and tricky to actually work or they are so off based from what a human body is capable off doing to be effective. Then you got the crowd(that think Taiji or Bagua or whatever art does xyz only) so they attempt to jam a round peg in a square hole when it comes to applications resulting from some movement/posture that they know or have seen. Grahm, I know from your posts you have struggle with the concept that Taijiquan might be also a striking art. Is your premise of Taijiquan causing you to pick up the round peg when you should be using the square one? Just a thought... we all do it.

Dian Bian or any posture has to be simple to be effective. Right? It has to be symmetrical and asymmetrical in application and function right? (in other words... if I'm in a left foot foreword single whip, it doesn't matter what stance my opponent is in or what hand he attacks me with.) The symmetrical and asymmetrical applications will be different, but all TCMA have two function for a posture. One for Knowing the positioning and timing is some of the key factors. Knowing reality is another.

Looking at the problem in a "macro view". Chinese martial arts have some common themes. Most are a combination of striking, kicking, throwing and joint locks. One of the most common applications in all Chinese arts is a double palm strike. It's called by many names. To most it's a double palm strike, it's easy to do, generates a lot of force and has multiple functions (hence applicable in reality) but in most Taijiquan houses... It's seen as a push? With Connecting, Attaching & Adhering stressed as prerequisites. See the problems? It's like someone showing you an application in Jujitsu and explaining to you its Nage waza but in reality the only way it works is to approach it as katame waza.

I think the problem stems from just about every western tree mugger and every Chinese book worm has claimed mastery and added their two cents into the fray resulting in a bunch of shit.

[neijia_boxer]

Interesting

IMO part of the problem is that many never have been taught by someone who is experienced in pugilism and actually know the material. If your are experienced much of the applications you see concerning TCMA on the internet are bunk. Most of the application are made up,fictitious or S.W.A.G.'ed (i.e. Scientific wild ass guessed at.) Either they are way to clever and tricky to actually work or they are so off based from what a human body is capable off doing to be effective. Then you got the crowd(that think Taiji or Bagua or whatever art does xyz only) so they attempt to jam a round peg in a square hole when it comes to applications resulting from some movement/posture that they know or have seen. Grahm, I know from your posts you have struggle with the concept that Taijiquan might be also a striking art. Is your premise of Taijiquan causing you to pick up the round peg when you should be using the square one? Just a thought... we all do it.

Dian Bian or any posture has to be simple to be effective. Right? It has to be symmetrical and asymmetrical in application and function right? (in other words... if I'm in a left foot foreword single whip, it doesn't matter what stance my opponent is in or what hand he attacks me with.) The symmetrical and asymmetrical applications will be different, but all TCMA have two function for a posture. One for Knowing the positioning and timing is some of the key factors. Knowing reality is another.

Looking at the problem in a "macro view". Chinese martial arts have some common themes. Most are a combination of striking, kicking, throwing and joint locks. One of the most common applications in all Chinese arts is a double palm strike. It's called by many names. To most it's a double palm strike, it's easy to do, generates a lot of force and has multiple functions (hence applicable in reality) but in most Taijiquan houses... It's seen as a push? With Connecting, Attaching & Adhering stressed as prerequisites. See the problems? It's like someone showing you an application in Jujitsu and explaining to you its Nage waza but in reality the only way it works is to approach it as katame waza.

I think the problem stems from just about every western tree mugger and every Chinese book worm has claimed mastery and added their two cents into the fray resulting in a bunch of shit.

Great analysis Ba-men.