Momentum = power

[rojcewiczj]

The big issue for me is that, when your fighting, you often get into positions in which most movements are fairly useless, and it seems that if one can focus solely on making the necessary movement while the rest of the body is relatively still, then that movement can be supported by the whole body. This is more on the lines of what Master Chen Zhonghua speaks of: his "no move" principle.

You have misunderstood what he means by "no move".

In many styles of Taijiquan, the body parts all move in the same direction at the same time. This is familiar to most people who do Taijiquan. A good example is the way in which most people perform "roll back" in the form sequence Grasp Bird's Tail. (I'm not picking on Yang style: most Chen style does the same thing.) In that move, the body weight shifts from the forward, right, leg to the rear, left, leg as the entire body rotates to the left. Everything is moving in the same direction, to the rear left. This is "a move": the center moves, the body weight shifts towards one side, the axis of rotation moves. The "move" is all of the body moving in the same direction in unison. In Hong's style, this is a fundamental error.

A basic principle of all styles of Taijiquan is to "separate Yin from Yang". In Hong's style, this is done explicitly by not moving all of the parts of the body in the same direction at the same time, in unison. Instead, it is done by rotation one joint on the other, like gears in a gear train: the rotation of one joint causes the rotation of the next. Some joints rotate in one direction while others rotate in the opposite direction. One of the most basic principles of the style, and the skills that result, is that the primary axis of rotation SHALL NOT MOVE left, right, forward or back: linear translation. If the axis moves, it is no longer pure rotation, but rotation AND translation.

Pure (i.e. 100%) translation is the example of a tug-of-war: two people pulling in opposite directions on each end of a rope. Whomever is stronger - can pull with greater force -wins. This is not the proverbial "four ounces beats/deflects 1000 pounds". It is force-on-force. Pulling is force-on-force. If the force opposing the force is equal, it is a stalemate with equal and opposite forces. If one force is stronger than the other, linear translation results. Using the example of "roll back", many students attempt this on an unwilling partner. If the partner resists being pulled, the "application" doesn't work unless the person pulling ("rolling back") pulls harder - with greater force - than the person resisting. This isn't what higher-level Taijiquan is about: it's a tug-of-war.

As I stated previously, the four ounces thing is about leverage, about mechanical advantage, not force-on-force and whomever is stronger. A lever requires three things: a pivot point (fulcrum), an axis or rotation through that point and about which the lever rotates and a lever arm (distance from the fulcrum and load). Pure (i.e. 100%) leverage - the greatest mechanical advantage - occurs in applications where the fulcrum is stationary. If one adds translation to the rotation - i.e. one moves the fulcrum while rotating the lever about its fulcrum - mechanical advantage is diminished.

Thus, there can be pure translation, pure rotation or any combination thereof, in varying proportions. One sees this expressed in the various styles of Taijiquan, each with its own proportions of translation and rotation. Hong's style focuses on mechanical advantage (rotation) and teaches one to establish a stationary fulcrum, define an axis of rotation and to apply leverage to the opponent. These are some of the fundamentals of the style. This is what is meant by "no move".

I spent about a month at Master Chen's school in China. I pushed-hands with his students and him and his ability is very much real. His students are generally quite capable as well. That being
said , I found his explanations often obscure and I ultimately did not want to commit myself to his method. Again, his ability is inspirational to me, but I had the sense that no one really understood what he was saying often, and that we were all just nodding our heads. Maybe this is the reality of developing your ability, that it requires not understanding, but I also feel that the intent cannot be complicated in training. The simple intent is necessary to me.

It is unfortunate that you spent a month there and understood so little of the basics of what he was teaching. Most of the students of his that I have met that have worked with him on a consistent basis understand very well the basics he teaches. (Being able to physically do them beyond a basic level, is another matter: it takes time and a lot of hard practice.) In any style, there are those exceptions who are naturally gifted and can acquire skills without a lot of understanding. In my experience, most who develop much skill have a very firm understanding of what they are trying to do and how to train to do it.

If you observed that others nodded their heads in understanding, if you did not understand, the onus was on you to ask further questions or ask for physical demonstrations of the principle being described. I have no doubt that he would have obliged you.

Thank you for getting into depth on this matter with me. I still don't understand what is men't by rotation in the Taiji sense. I never had an issue understanding the physical demonstrations of Master Chen but his demonstration largely involve him standing still and they only making a movement of the arm and, it seems to me, this is very effective if one places ones self advantageously before making the move. On one occasion I pushed hands with Master Chen and I noticed that if I gave no resistance he could not control me. When I made a pointless but tense action he used that opportunity and pulled me down onto my stomach. I dont see how "no move" is more than this: to not move any part of your body that you don't need to move, in order to create force on the opponent/object. I see how trying to move your whole body in one direction while you pull/push is excessive in terms of movement and generally results in a clumsy application of force, but I dont see this huge divide that you seem to believe. Doesn't the body already move in lever systems? Isn't it just a matter of not being excessive with your movements and working from an appropriate position?

[charles]

Thank you for getting into depth on this matter with me. I still don't understand what is men't by rotation in the Taiji sense. I never had an issue understanding the physical demonstrations of Master Chen but his demonstration largely involve him standing still and they only making a movement of the arm...

Then you haven't understood his physical demonstrations.

Whole-body movement. The arm moving is the obvious portion of movement. You've missed the rest. He has many videos on-line showing explicitly exaggerated aspects of other parts of the body and how they are incorporated in the two basic circles of the style.

At the most beginner level, he'll have a student just move the arm. It is a specific training exercise. Extend the arm outward leading with the fingertips: withdraw the arm leading with the elbow. Beyond that, it is a very sophisticated use of the body and how the parts are coordinated. The basic circles involve extending and retracting the arm - a count of two. As one progresses, the circle is done to a count of nine and involve specific articulations of various body parts.

I dont see how "no move" is more than this: to not move any part of your body that you don't need to move, in order to create force on the opponent/object.

That's true, in the most general reductionist sense. Now which parts of the body need to be moved and which don't in each circumstance your opponent provides? Answer that question, demonstrate the ability and you've mastered the art.

What you've written is rather like saying, "Space travel is straight-forward: all you have to do is escape gravity and go." The devil is in the details.

I see how trying to move your whole body in one direction while you pull/push is excessive in terms of movement and generally results in a clumsy application of force, but I dont see this huge divide that you seem to believe. Doesn't the body already move in lever systems? Isn't it just a matter of not being excessive with your movements and working from an appropriate position?

I think the answer is self-evident. If everyone's "natural", "normal" abilities resulted in "the weak beat the strong", "four ounces deflect 1000 pounds", "old beat the young", "separate Yin and Yang", etc. everyone would already be a master of Taijiquan. We aren't. You wouldn't be looking for a method of producing "power" so that you can prevail over larger, heavier, stronger opponents: you'd naturally know how to do that. Taijiquan is a method - or a group of methods - for reversing the axioms of nature, the law of the jungle: the strong beat the week; the young beat the old; the fast beat the slow.

[charles]

I still don't understand what is men't by rotation in the Taiji sense.

My reduction of Taijiquan is that Taijiquan involves using the body in a specific way, characterized by whole-body movement. Whole-body movement is comprised of three components used in isolation or in combination. These are expansion/contraction (open/close), translation and rotation. I put together a video of exercises intended to explicitly teach these three components in isolation and in combination. The second trailer of the video shows some of the content related to rotation and is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Z2-OK0YTM. Note that the video content is intended to be "generic" in nature, rather than style-specific: it does not teach Hong style. Some of the things shown in the video directly contradict what is taught in Hong style.

Rotation is used in Taijiquan in a number of ways. One way is spiral - more correctly, helical - motion and is the basis of "silk reeling". Silk reeling is, in Chen style, the method of connecting the parts of the body in motion. Put another way, it is how the motion of the dan tian reaches the extremities. (If you want to go there, it is how qi is "transmitted" from the dan tian to the extremities and back from the extremities to the dan tian.) If you see the arm move, look to the torso, kua and knees to see what drives the movement of the arm. An advanced practitioner may choose to make the motions of the torso, kua and knees very small: unless you know what you are looking for, you may not see it, though it is hidden in plain sight.

CZH has said that there is no point in keeping secrets: even if you give the "secrets" to the students they still don't get it. It takes a lot of work to "get it".

[windwalker]

CZH has said that there is no point in keeping secrets: even if you give the "secrets" to the students they still don't get it. It takes a lot of work to "get it".

+1

nice clip, we use the same type of movements, interesting seeing them expressed from a "chen" perspective.
Understand that all taiji styles utilize the same type of movements.

nice, well done, and quite clear

post edit:

Note that the video content is intended to be "generic" in nature, rather than style-specific:

didtnt catch this,, again well done, and quite clear.

[rojcewiczj]

I still don't understand what is men't by rotation in the Taiji sense.

My reduction of Taijiquan is that Taijiquan involves using the body in a specific way, characterized by whole-body movement. Whole-body movement is comprised of three components used in isolation or in combination. These are expansion/contraction (open/close), translation and rotation. I put together a video of exercises intended to explicitly teach these three components in isolation and in combination. The second trailer of the video shows some of the content related to rotation and is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Z2-OK0YTM. Note that the video content is intended to be "generic" in nature, rather than style-specific: it does not teach Hong style. Some of the things shown in the video directly contradict what is taught in Hong style.

Rotation is used in Taijiquan in a number of ways. One way is spiral - more correctly, helical - motion and is the basis of "silk reeling". Silk reeling is, in Chen style, the method of connecting the parts of the body in motion. Put another way, it is how the motion of the dan tian reaches the extremities. (If you want to go there, it is how qi is "transmitted" from the dan tian to the extremities and back from the extremities to the dan tian.) If you see the arm move, look to the torso, kua and knees to see what drives the movement of the arm. An advanced practitioner may choose to make the motions of the torso, kua and knees very small: unless you know what you are looking for, you may not see it, though it is hidden in plain sight.

CZH has said that there is no point in keeping secrets: even if you give the "secrets" to the students they still don't get it. It takes a lot of work to "get it".

I enjoyed your videos. I like what your doing very much as it approachs the movements in a very matter of fact way. For a long while I really believed in the validity of whole-body movement and I would like to return to that approach, I feel my uncertainty is rooted in the feedback I've gotten when pushing-hands, where ones attitude and intent can lead to so many conclusions: particularly the making of a pointless action which only serves the opponent. If you would, can you tell me how the whole-body movement results in more power? Do your muscles work together to produce a greater force? Do your movements combine to increase linear momentum? I know this can be tricky to answer, but for me this is the whole issue: the issue of how making these combined movements is useful compared to the isolated movement of just one part.

[charles]

I feel my uncertainty is rooted in the feedback I've gotten when pushing-hands, where ones attitude and intent can lead to so many conclusions: particularly the making of a pointless action which only serves the opponent.

Attaining skill and ability is not a quick or easy matter. It takes a lot of time and effort and the willingness to learn through mistakes, the concept of "invest in loss". One learns how to apply a method that is counter-intuitive.

If you would, can you tell me how the whole-body movement results in more power? Do your muscles work together to produce a greater force?

That's part of it, yes.

Do your movements combine to increase linear momentum?

In some circumstances, yes. Forget about momentum. Momentum is icing on the cake. Don't confuse icing and cake. Taijiquan is not primarily a method to harness momentum.

I know this can be tricky to answer, but for me this is the whole issue: the issue of how making these combined movements is useful compared to the isolated movement of just one part.

It is a method. The method involves using the entire body in a coordinated fashion. There are skills and abilities that result from long practice of this method. It requires a certain amount of faith in the method and teacher of the method that if you practice counter-intuitive stuff long enough, in the way you are directed, you will achieve certain skills and abilities. A good place to start is with a teacher who has the skills and abilities you want to have.

"Power", or force, are only parts of the equation. You are completely missing the other, often more important aspects of the art.

The method of Taijiquan, as a whole, is not to blast a strong, stable opponent with so much force ("power") that he is overcome. Generally, that is brute force: whomever has more of it wins. Consider the following example by CZH. Take a heavy, hardcover book and place it on a table so that it is exactly balanced over the edge of the table. That is, half of the book is on the table, half is cantilevered from the edge of the table. No matter how hard you pound the supported half of the book with your fist, the book will not fall. Now, with the lightest touch of your finger, press on the cantilevered half of the book. The smallest force will cause the book to fall. That is Taijiquan. That is leverage and mechanical advantage - affecting a heavy thing with a light thing. A relatively small amount of force applied to the right place in the right circumstance. One can use more force, rather than a small force, if one wants to cause injury.

The question, of course, is where should the force be applied in a particular altercation? And, that is the art of Taijiquan, figuring that out. It isn't obvious or intuitive, for the most part. It takes a lot of time and effort to figure it out and be able to actually implement it when and as needed.

Having strength ("power") and speed are certainly factors, but are not the basis of the method. In my opinion, the most difficult part of the method is to learn to eliminate one's own natural tendencies towards hardness/stiffness and brute strength: they hamper the ability to change. The art is about change: how and what to change in response to an opponent's action. How to change and what to change to obtain mechanical advantage.

[Bodywork]

Couple of things:
I am certain that Hong's real students would find the idea of CZH's movements being an accurate *representation* of Hong style quite amusing. They would not however, consider it surprising. They know full well how he is viewed in the west. And...they simply do not care. I am not stating this. I am simply repeating what has been said to me by one of Hong's longest students and by those who train with another of his older students. From what I have seen anyone immersed long enough gets what the story was behind CZH being the international rep. Interestingly he was put up for that spot by two of his ...real... teachers: both of them actual students of Hong. A comparison of movement and teaching of Hong's students clearly shows a different approach than CZH's.

Theory
Caveat: I'm not interested in talking taiji or any specific art
While I agree with pretty much everything Charles has written, and as I have discussed in other places, mechanical advantage has many attributes both overt and nuanced. However discussion of mechanics often fail when discussing human movement in combatives. It has been tried and failed in Judo, Karate and Aikido for generations and I can only assume ICMA as well.
First and foremost, people are not inanimate *fixed in space* objects to either apply force to, or to disrupt force from. People do radically different things than objects. The nervous system, an opponent’s tensions (connected or disconnected) their fighting acumen, etc., all result in dramatically different responses to forces, in or out.
* The human nervous system can automatically fall prey to three different input within a second or two. After the first two, the third causes the nervous system to lose track. This is taught in many arts. It is one of many reasons that spiral movement is used so often. In and of itself a spiral offered multiple directions of force and automatically plays with the human response mechanism in any person trained or otherwise:
* Now, you will get a different response from different classes of martial artists to that nerve reaction; from tense martial artists trained to be responsive hoppy people, on to a more relaxed grappler who will just move into another advantageous position in a flow. What *is* important is that if you know what you are doing and can produce these forces they can be stuck in a reactive loop to your controlled movements.
* Isolated muscular tensioning versus a trained relaxed fighter. While I covered some of that above, a tensioned localized at a spot *you* want or chose to be a fulcrum, is going to behave far different than a whole body movement, inherently connected to itself and in itself moving *around* your owned established fulcrum. Your fulcrum will, by necessity, have to be moving accordingly to maintain leverage. This is best accomplished with circular movement. Which, is a very deep topic within human combatives and a staple for virtually all of the higher arts.

For this reason leverage is not always the best model for discussion. Fixed fulcrum points are all but useless in a discussion of combatives.
Tangents creating fulcrums through rotation best suit the descriptive model for combatives as both the axis and the directed forces applied can be fluid. In many cases the applied force can be rotational as well. For this reason, a study of how to move an axis, without creating force on force, and all the while retaining rotational movement eminatimg from and controlled by, Dantian, becomes challenging. However, it is also the arms that become disruptive themselves- through sophisticated manipulation-without breaking connection that becomes challenging as well. A challenge best suited for continuous solo training, and pressure testing.
In any event the translation or moving of the axis and the results on an inanimate and or fixed load is far different than the resultant effect on a human with both a nervous system, a response mechanism, and a moveable load. I wanted to point out that all of this is far different from someone with a connected dantian and others without. They will simply not feel the same. Further, rotational movement created *with intent* controlling a yin/yang process is far different than creating a fulcrum by normal movement. This statement causes quite a bit of controversy online, but it is displayed consistently on many different people, and in public settings. Circles and spiral movement from a normal person, compared to a trained person, who can generate opposing forces on all body parts in a single movement, are no where near the same. Neither is the approach the same.

Rotations in single direction.
A case can be made for this with legs and dantain and body rotations-say rotating to the left. But a smart player will have far more complex movement happening in his arms and in his legs than just rotation. Further, there can be an added translation without producing force-on-force. You can use it to arrive behind his forces-in or out adding to his own creation of momentum, thus capturing his own generation of momentum- seemingly throwing him without force at all. Add a bounce in yourself of a trained dantian off a power leg doing certain things and you have even more power.
That said, there is an ability to produce what looks like single direction *force-out* that is, in itself actually created by rotational movement creating a central equilibrium in you, that makes tremendous and damaging forces but were someone to try and throw you at its end, they find that there was not “release” of force in that direction and you cannot be easily taken off your feet. This is very useful when grapplers slips what looks like a dedicated punch but find it was delivered from a balanced body in continual rotational movement that has just delivered a second and third while still remaining in equilibrium.

[D_Glenn]

Couple of things:
I am certain that Hong's real students would find the idea of CZH's movements being an accurate *representation* of Hong style quite amusing. They would not however, consider it surprising. They know full well how he is viewed in the west. And...they simply do not care. I am not stating this. I am simply repeating what has been said to me by one of Hong's longest students and by those who train with another of his older students. From what I have seen anyone immersed long enough gets what the story was behind CZH being the international rep. Interestingly he was put up for that spot by two of his ...real... teachers: both of them actual students of Hong. A comparison of movement and teaching of Hong's students clearly shows a different approach than CZH's.

Theory
Caveat: I'm not interested in talking taiji or any specific art
While I agree with pretty much everything Charles has written, and as I have discussed in other places, mechanical advantage has many attributes both overt and nuanced. However discussion of mechanics often fail when discussing human movement in combatives. It has been tried and failed in Judo, Karate and Aikido for generations and I can only assume ICMA as well.
First and foremost, people are not inanimate *fixed in space* objects to either apply force to, or to disrupt force from. People do radically different things than objects. The nervous system, an opponent’s tensions (connected or disconnected) their fighting acumen, etc., all result in dramatically different responses to forces, in or out.
* The human nervous system can automatically fall prey to three different input within a second or two. After the first two, the third causes the nervous system to lose track. This is taught in many arts. It is one of many reasons that spiral movement is used so often. In and of itself a spiral offered multiple directions of force and automatically plays with the human response mechanism in any person trained or otherwise:
* Now, you will get a different response from different classes of martial artists to that nerve reaction; from tense martial artists trained to be responsive hoppy people, on to a more relaxed grappler who will just move into another advantageous position in a flow. What *is* important is that if you know what you are doing and can produce these forces they can be stuck in a reactive loop to your controlled movements.
* Isolated muscular tensioning versus a trained relaxed fighter. While I covered some of that above, a tensioned localized at a spot *you* want or chose to be a fulcrum, is going to behave far different than a whole body movement, inherently connected to itself and in itself moving *around* your owned established fulcrum. Your fulcrum will, by necessity, have to be moving accordingly to maintain leverage. This is best accomplished with circular movement. Which, is a very deep topic within human combatives and a staple for virtually all of the higher arts.

For this reason leverage is not always the best model for discussion. Fixed fulcrum points are all but useless in a discussion of combatives.
Tangents creating fulcrums through rotation best suit the descriptive model for combatives as both the axis and the directed forces applied can be fluid. In many cases the applied force can be rotational as well. For this reason, a study of how to move an axis, without creating force on force, and all the while retaining rotational movement eminatimg from and controlled by, Dantian, becomes challenging. However, it is also the arms that become disruptive themselves- through sophisticated manipulation-without breaking connection that becomes challenging as well. A challenge best suited for continuous solo training, and pressure testing.
In any event the translation or moving of the axis and the results on an inanimate and or fixed load is far different than the resultant effect on a human with both a nervous system, a response mechanism, and a moveable load. I wanted to point out that all of this is far different from someone with a connected dantian and others without. They will simply not feel the same. Further, rotational movement created *with intent* controlling a yin/yang process is far different than creating a fulcrum by normal movement. This statement causes quite a bit of controversy online, but it is displayed consistently in public. Circles and spiral movement from a normal person to trained person are no where near the same
Rotations in single direction. A case can be made for this with legs and dantain and body rotations-say rotating to the left. But a smart player will have far more complex movement happening in his arms and in his legs than just rotation. Further, there can be an added translation without producing force-on-force. You can use it to arrive behind his forces-in or out adding to his own creation of momentum, thus capturing his own generation of momentum- seemingly throwing him without force at all. Add a bounce in yourself of a trained dantian off a power leg doing certain things and you have even more power.
That said, there is an ability to produce what looks like single direction *force-out* that is, in itself actually created by rotational movement creating a central equilibrium in you, that makes tremendous and damaging forces but were someone to try and throw you at its end, they find that there was not “release” of force in that direction and you cannot be easily taken off your feet. This is very useful when grapplers slips what looks like a dedicated punch but find it was delivered from a balanced body in continual rotational movement that has just delivered a second and third while still remaining in equilibrium.

Really nice explanation of, I hate to mention it again but, what's called 'Zhuanhuan' (Rotational Changes); and also the saying 'Off by an inch, miss by a mile' in regards to training practice where if one's biomechanics are off just a little tiny bit, then that small thing compounds and even though someone practices for 20 years they still don't have real power because they were off just a little bit when they started.

It's not about lineage, it's not about any one teacher. (Of course one needs to find someone who's doing it correctly in the first place). But it's about being diligent in one's own practice. When we're dealing with just centimeters of difference in a movement, a centimeter that potentially makes a huge difference, then we need to be our own best teacher. On can never fill their cup when it comes to this, everyday keep questioning yourself, never seek perfection, just make it less and less incorrect.

Go out and meet other IMA teachers, as it's not about lineage. In my experiences you can find gold in another skilled person's analysis of your internal biomechanical movements even if they're not really at the same level of refinement as other people.

.

[Bodywork]

Hello Devon. Thanks for the nod, but that's all it really is. I've seen you move. You can't do what I just wrote.
To be perfectly frank and honest, the majority of people here would not be able to do what I just wrote. They couldn't even describe it much less do it physically on the spot. Other than two Taiji Grandmasters, (of course) I've not may anyone around the world who even came close. Mind you, I know there are many out there of course, but judging by the writing? They sure ain't here. The location and nature of the rotational values and the quality and use of the bows to add to them have never been truly addressed here.

[D_Glenn]

Hello Devon. Thanks for the nod, but that's all it really is. I've seen you move. You can't do what I just wrote.
To be perfectly frank and honest, the majority of people here would not be able to do what I just wrote. They couldn't even describe it much less do it physically on the spot. Other than two Taiji Grandmasters, (of course) I've not may anyone around the world who even came close. Mind you, I know there are many out there of course, but judging by the writing? They sure ain't here. The location and nature of the rotational values and the quality and use of the bows to add to them have never been truly addressed here.

Sure. I'm only pointing stuff out in your posts for the people who study both with you and with He Jinbao. I get quite a few PMs about how our methods compare to your own and I'm only pointing out the terminology so they can see better how they relate.

***
To be fair though, yes, you've seen videos of me moving that I filmed in 2005/6 and it's of the Dragon Xing that I'm doing in the video, and it intentionally doesn't really use much Zhuanhuan. But no hard feelings because I have nothing to prove to anyone else but my own teacher. And he's had me demonstrate my movements in front of other Chinese martial artists, (which later helped me out as they remembered who I was. But that's a whole other story.)

(My Zhuanhuan is pretty crappy though, but my Zhedie is pretty powerful.)

But again, everything I write is not about me. I nobody. I'm just using this medium of getting information out there to persuade people to dig deeper into what the CIMA are really about.

.

[Trip]

Theory
Caveat: I'm not interested in talking taiji or any specific art
While I agree with pretty much everything Charles has written, and as I have discussed in other places, mechanical advantage has many attributes both overt and nuanced. However discussion of mechanics often fail when discussing human movement in combatives. It has been tried and failed in Judo, Karate and Aikido for generations and I can only assume ICMA as well.
First and foremost, people are not inanimate *fixed in space* objects to either apply force to, or to disrupt force from. People do radically different things than objects. The nervous system, an opponent’s tensions (connected or disconnected) their fighting acumen, etc., all result in dramatically different responses to forces, in or out.
* The human nervous system can automatically fall prey to three different input within a second or two. After the first two, the third causes the nervous system to lose track. This is taught in many arts. It is one of many reasons that spiral movement is used so often. In and of itself a spiral offered multiple directions of force and automatically plays with the human response mechanism in any person trained or otherwise:
* Now, you will get a different response from different classes of martial artists to that nerve reaction; from tense martial artists trained to be responsive hoppy people, on to a more relaxed grappler who will just move into another advantageous position in a flow. What *is* important is that if you know what you are doing and can produce these forces they can be stuck in a reactive loop to your controlled movements.
* Isolated muscular tensioning versus a trained relaxed fighter. While I covered some of that above, a tensioned localized at a spot *you* want or chose to be a fulcrum, is going to behave far different than a whole body movement, inherently connected to itself and in itself moving *around* your owned established fulcrum. Your fulcrum will, by necessity, have to be moving accordingly to maintain leverage. This is best accomplished with circular movement. Which, is a very deep topic within human combatives and a staple for virtually all of the higher arts.

For this reason leverage is not always the best model for discussion. Fixed fulcrum points are all but useless in a discussion of combatives.
Tangents creating fulcrums through rotation best suit the descriptive model for combatives as both the axis and the directed forces applied can be fluid. In many cases the applied force can be rotational as well. For this reason, a study of how to move an axis, without creating force on force, and all the while retaining rotational movement eminatimg from and controlled by, Dantian, becomes challenging. However, it is also the arms that become disruptive themselves- through sophisticated manipulation-without breaking connection that becomes challenging as well. A challenge best suited for continuous solo training, and pressure testing.
In any event the translation or moving of the axis and the results on an inanimate and or fixed load is far different than the resultant effect on a human with both a nervous system, a response mechanism, and a moveable load. I wanted to point out that all of this is far different from someone with a connected dantian and others without. They will simply not feel the same. Further, rotational movement created *with intent* controlling a yin/yang process is far different than creating a fulcrum by normal movement. This statement causes quite a bit of controversy online, but it is displayed consistently on many different people, and in public settings. Circles and spiral movement from a normal person, compared to a trained person, who can generate opposing forces on all body parts in a single movement, are no where near the same. Neither is the approach the same.

Rotations in single direction.
A case can be made for this with legs and dantain and body rotations-say rotating to the left. But a smart player will have far more complex movement happening in his arms and in his legs than just rotation. Further, there can be an added translation without producing force-on-force. You can use it to arrive behind his forces-in or out adding to his own creation of momentum, thus capturing his own generation of momentum- seemingly throwing him without force at all. Add a bounce in yourself of a trained dantian off a power leg doing certain things and you have even more power.
That said, there is an ability to produce what looks like single direction *force-out* that is, in itself actually created by rotational movement creating a central equilibrium in you, that makes tremendous and damaging forces but were someone to try and throw you at its end, they find that there was not “release” of force in that direction and you cannot be easily taken off your feet. This is very useful when grapplers slips what looks like a dedicated punch but find it was delivered from a balanced body in continual rotational movement that has just delivered a second and third while still remaining in equilibrium.

Greetings BodyWork,

Nice Post!

Through my Taiji goggles, I agreed with many things contained within it.

I enjoyed these particular phases:

...move an axis, without creating force on force, and all the while retaining rotational movement...

The human nervous system can automatically fall prey to three different input within a second or two. After the first two, the third causes the nervous system to lose track.

And thus...

They will simply not feel the same.

But I really loved this phrase:

You can use it to arrive behind his forces-in or out adding to his own creation of momentum, thus capturing his own generation of momentum...

I'd add that a neutralization of the opponent’s incoming force automatically occurs just before you “arrive behind his forces and utilize his momentum against him.

I find that even a small arc produces surprising power that “uses his momentum” to lead his downfall.

Taiji uses the phrase Sticking & Yielding or Sticking & Following.

Btw, Saying "I would add” does not imply you did not know about something.
I’m just joining the discussion with you.

Thanks again for the post.

[charles]

I am simply repeating what has been said to me by one of Hong's longest students and by those who train with another of his older students... A comparison of movement and teaching of Hong's students clearly shows a different approach than CZH's.

You've previously stated that you worked with LCD. I spent a little time with him and am aware of the above.

the majority of people here would not be able to do what I just wrote.

I'm certain that I cannot, and make no claim that I can.

I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.