Plucking Up The Back: is poor posture necessary?

[Ah Louis]

I'm pretty sure that last clip has been mistitled - in your second to last post.. (combat tutorial)
I have that VCD and it's Northern Wu style IIRC.

Thank you, I have no doubt to that. I am not a Wu style practitioner, am not sure if plucking up the back is something practiced. The video, siding on the side it is Wu and not Yang, then becomes a comparative example showing the adoption of kyphosis posture. The master in the video then must feel there is an importance to kyphosis posture.

[Marko]

Since the thread is drifting somewhat to be plucking up or not to be plucking up [...] All the videos show plucking up of the back a.k.a kyphosis or curving the back.

I certainly don't debate whether or not to pluck up the back. One should certainly do this if one is performing Yang style. What I'm saying is that in Yang style (which I do train BTW) you are plucking the back up not backwards. Backwards movement flexes the spine creating the curve, while plucking up elongates the spine and expands the rib cage to the sides. The easiest I can think of explaining the difference is for you to try and soften the tissues of the lumbar spine. If you can do this, the chest - meaning the breast bone - will drop ever so slightly down (in turn ribs on the front of the rib cage will follow - hence hollowing or sinking of the chest), while the thoracic spine will extend up and the ribcage will open up and to the sides (hence plucking up or raising the back). This action has nothing to do with creating a kyphotic spine. If the point was to flex the spine to the back the principle would not be called plucking up, but pushing back or something like that. It is also not a static position but a dynamic action, as evidenced in Chen Fu's book on application where almost every entry starts with "if the opponent does this, I immediately hollow the chest."

EDIT: the action is used to sink "the qi" on the front and raise it up the back and through the hands. As "everything" pointed out - it is not about the spinal position per se, it is about creating the force vectors in the body.

It would be nice if Steve Rowe would add his opinion on this, since IIRC, he trained with Mary Yang who is the granddaughter of Yang Chen Fu.

[Ah Louis]

Keeping the thread on track, kyphosis posture in Yang Taichi is evident in practice, something self imposed and not a disease. The practice of plucking up the back in the practice of Yang Taichi doesn't harm the body. In other masters of different styles we also see kyphosis could be a requirement of their arts, or a condition resulting from their practice and/or age. All of which seems not harmed or inhibited by their mild kyphosis postures. Now there are other postures that risk knee strain and damage to the unsuspecting and novice.

It is important to evaluate movement for potential harmful effects in any MA. It is wise to avoid or modify them to avoid injury. The issue stands if the movement or posture is integral to the art any modification or exclusion effects the art's preservation and integrity. There is no MA without risk of injury as a result of movement, and not every movement or posture is harmful despite how it looks. A practitioner and teacher can also take precautions to protect from injury. There is a balance in avoiding being overly concerned that every and any movement or posture will do catastrophic damage and harm. It must be understood MA have risks, some greater than others, not understanding that isn't being realistic in terms of a physical activity.

What we would consider poor posture seen in Yang Taichi, the plucking of the back we may be tempted to abandon the posture, the principle, the action, for fear of physical damage. All without knowing the plucking of the back that can be termed as kyphosis is harmless and has essential benefit to Yang Taiji.

[Ah Louis]

Marko,

I appreciate your comment concerning theories and mechanics plucking up the back, and qi. I am sure your comment best serves the thread "beyond the plucking of the back, where I think the focus is on what is the best method and model for plucking up the back. I feel there is value to such a discussion. I hope the value of this thread provides food for thought, and a deeper evaluation into what postures are and aren't harmful to the practitioner. The value of this thread is not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

[Marko]

Marko,

I appreciate your comment concerning theories and mechanics plucking up the back, and qi. I am sure your comment best serves the thread "beyond the plucking of the back, where I think the focus is on what is the best method and model for plucking up the back. I feel there is value to such a discussion. I hope the value of this thread provides food for thought, and a deeper evaluation into what postures are and aren't harmful to the practitioner. The value of this thread is not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Ah Louis, I am sorry you feel the need to tell me off of this thread, especially when all I have said is on topic of the concept of plucking up the back and whether it produces a poor or medically unsound posture. As a practitioner of Yang style in a lineage coming from Yang Chen Fu's eldest son, Yang Sau Chung, through his disciple of 28 years (Ip Tai Tak) I think that I can say with some certainty that it is not the case.

I am not saying that there aren't instances of unhealthy postures amongst the practitioners of Yang style, and I wholeheartedly agree that a deeper evaluation of postural problems within practitioners of the Yang style is a valuable discussion that can provide food for thought, but I don't think that masses of people practicing the Yang style with a poor understanding of the principles validates the claim that the concepts themselves promote poor posture.

Here are some photos as a counter argument to the claim that kyphotic posture is mandatory in Yang style. I think these pictures are particularly on point as none of the persons on them are rotund so there is no problem of actually seeing their upper back clearly.



Yang Sau Chung (with the his back turned) and Ip Tai Tak



Ip Tai Tak



Master Chu - Yang Sau Chung's second disciple



Yang Jun and Yang Bin (great grandsons of Yang Chen Fu through his second son Yang Zhenduo) performing Tui Shou

As can be seen, none of these gentlemen have kyphosis (which despite what you say is a harmful medical condition), nor any pronounced curve (other than normal) of the thoracic spine. The only instance of kyphotic spine put on this thread so far is Master Huang's which we have already established had mixed his Cheng style with his White Crane so he is not a good representative of Yang style at all.

[Ah Louis]

combined post with quote

[Ah Louis]

Marko,

I appreciate your comment concerning theories and mechanics plucking up the back, and qi. I am sure your comment best serves the thread "beyond the plucking of the back, where I think the focus is on what is the best method and model for plucking up the back. I feel there is value to such a discussion. I hope the value of this thread provides food for thought, and a deeper evaluation into what postures are and aren't harmful to the practitioner. The value of this thread is not throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Ah Louis, I am sorry you feel the need to tell me off of this thread, especially when all I have said is on topic of the concept of plucking up the back and whether it produces a poor or medically unsound posture. As a practitioner of Yang style in a lineage coming from Yang Chen Fu's eldest son, Yang Sau Chung, through his disciple of 28 years (Ip Tai Tak) I think that I can say with some certainty that it is not the case.

I am not saying that there aren't instances of unhealthy postures amongst the practitioners of Yang style, and I wholeheartedly agree that a deeper evaluation of postural problems within practitioners of the Yang style is a valuable discussion that can provide food for thought, but I don't think that masses of people practicing the Yang style with a poor understanding of the principles validates the claim that the concepts themselves promote poor posture.

Here are some photos as a counter argument to the claim that kyphotic posture is mandatory in Yang style. I think these pictures are particularly on point as none of the persons on them are rotund so there is no problem of actually seeing their upper back clearly.

As can be seen, none of these gentlemen have kyphosis (which despite what you say is a harmful medical condition), nor any pronounced curve (other than normal) of the thoracic spine. The only instance of kyphotic spine put on this thread so far is Master Huang's which we have already established had mixed his Cheng style with his White Crane so he is not a good representative of Yang style at all.

Marko,

I am sorry if you feel I came off insulting to you that wasn't my intention. I was merely making a friendly suggestion where your post would get the most appropriate responses.

I don't debate your mechanical or theoretical points, if that is how you where trained and your perspective on how the back is plucked who am I to criticize. I am not debating in this thread the translation of the dictum, or the idea model or methodology of plucking up the back. I will let the scholars versed in Chinese and the Masters of Yang Taiji to that.

If you are saying a straight back does no harm to the practitioner, I agree. OTOH, just for kicks and giggles, if you built an argument saying a kyphotic posture does harm to the spine or any other part of the body, I would be interesting in hearing it.

[Marko]

I don't debate your mechanical or theoretical points, if that is how you where trained and your perspective on how the back is plucked who am I to criticize. I am not debating in this thread the translation of the dictum, or the idea model or methodology of plucking up the back. I will let the scholars versed in Chinese and the Masters of Yang Taiji to that.

If you are saying a straight back does no harm to the practitioner, I agree. OTOH, just for kicks and giggles, if you built an argument saying a kyphotic posture does harm to the spine or any other part of the body, I would be interesting in hearing it.

Ah Louis, can you tell me what do you do debate? Because this is from your OP:

If you are a die hard Yang style practitioner it is an absolute to "pluck up the back." Yet, I have see enough Chinese Yang style students and masters develop chronic kyphosis as a result of following Yang's dictum.

What is the forum's thoughts. To what degree should the plucking up the back should be, slight, moderator, or to the degree of kyphosis? I will refrain at this point from giving my opinion, so to read responses and experiences from others.

I'm saying that people who develop kyphosis from doing Yang style do not understand the principle in question as Yangs themselves and their closest disciples (as evidenced in the photos) have not developed any, despite long term practice. So in answer to your OP question, plucking of the back should not cause kyphosis at all.

As for kyphosis itself, depending on the severity and type it can vary from presenting no issue at all to causing severe problems ranging from chronic pain to cardiovascular and neurological difficulties.

[cloudz]

Thank you, I have no doubt to that. I am not a Wu style practitioner, am not sure if plucking up the back is something practiced.

Wu style does plucking up the back, as do all styles of TCC.

The video, siding on the side it is Wu and not Yang, then becomes a comparative example showing the adoption of kyphosis posture. The master in the video then must feel there is an importance to kyphosis posture.

1. no it doesn't
2. no he doesn't

[D_Glenn]

I'm not up to speed on all the fallacies but isn't Ah louis using a Hasty_generalization?

On top of this leap of logic is that it's only single line of a sentence taken out of context of the whole paragraph, which itself (the paragraph) is a misunderstanding of the original terms:

This is an important subject very misunderstood. I had in mind to write an article about it but time constrain and various other things to do made me postpone the idea.

"Hanxiong" 涵胸 (not 含胸) originally comes from Wu Yixiang formulas* and was later re-(mis)interpreted in the 30s by Xu Yusheng first and later by Yang Chengfu and his various ghost-writers.

The "hanxiong" admonition initially referred ONLY to avoiding "ting xiong" 挺胸 (puffing the chest like a soldier).

Yang Jianhou's formulas requires that the chest should be "kai" 開 OPEN because otherwise "qi does not pass through"

肘不張，肩不鬆，胸不開，氣不通

In the 30s, when most of the public Taijiquan manuals started to become published, the emphasis on "hanxiong babei" was mainly borrowed from the other two "internal arts" and with the influence of people like Sun Lutang people were brought to believe (and many still do, also in the west) of purported commonalities between the three "internal arts".

As a matter of fact Li Yaxuan, one of the most prominent disciples of Yang Chengfu, made heavy remarks to Yang Chengfu's works and in particular addressed the "hanxiong" subject as early as the 60s. He clearly stated that "the term hanxiong babei does not appear in the older texts, but it is a rule for Xingyi and Bagua imported via the likes of Chen Weiming and Sun Lutang...".


YM

* which most probably come from his reading of the archery classic "Shooting Classic" where "hanxiong" (actually, here it is again "the chest cannot protrude") is among the main requirements

.

[Ah Louis]

I'm not up to speed on all the fallacies but isn't Ah louis using a Hasty_generalization?

On top of this leap of logic is that it's only single line of a sentence taken out of context of the whole paragraph, which itself (the paragraph) is a misunderstanding of the original terms:

In past posts and the OT, it is clear I wasn't making an argument that supports such a fallacy. My argument is health related and not scholarly pedantic arguments about translation, history of, what the ideal model or method of plucking up the back. I do use the medical nomenclature kyphosis interchangeably with the commonly translated phrase of plucking up the back among Yang Taiji practitioners. I don't imply the phrase is proprietary to Yang taiji or other styles of taiji , or ICMA that is another matter for another thread. I am not concerned with such a scholarly subjects.

My argument, casually constructed, is rather the observation that such a posture isn't harmful to the practitioner under the conditions of practice. Just like in boxing, or any other martial art that adopts such a curved back posture. My argument doesn't wavier, a self-imposed curved back held between slight to moderate has no ill effects on the body of a healthy person, despite the seemingly indication of disease.

If anyone wants to talk about the ideal model or who understands it or doesn't, fine. Please don't include me in such discussions, because I have no interest in being part of such arguments. I personally have excluded myself from such arguments, as I believe to each his own.

[cloudz]

In my experience poor posture could be as much if not more usually about getting the chest wrong rather than the back. Concaving or 'containing' the chest in the wrong way that pulls out the back rather than pull it up. You can say the same with the back(affecting the chest), but I'm not sure there is any good reason to focus on one or other being "the cause" of this or that..

They compliment each-other/ work together. The most simple way I can put this is that up / down is right, in/out is wrong in this context. Once you get one wrong like this, you get both wrong.
Frankly whether it's a martial or health context makes no difference to anything.

[cloudz]

I'm not up to speed on all the fallacies but isn't Ah louis using a Hasty_generalization?

On top of this leap of logic is that it's only single line of a sentence taken out of context of the whole paragraph, which itself (the paragraph) is a misunderstanding of the original terms:

This is an important subject very misunderstood. I had in mind to write an article about it but time constrain and various other things to do made me postpone the idea.

"Hanxiong" 涵胸 (not 含胸) originally comes from Wu Yixiang formulas* and was later re-(mis)interpreted in the 30s by Xu Yusheng first and later by Yang Chengfu and his various ghost-writers.

The "hanxiong" admonition initially referred ONLY to avoiding "ting xiong" 挺胸 (puffing the chest like a soldier).

Yang Jianhou's formulas requires that the chest should be "kai" 開 OPEN because otherwise "qi does not pass through"

肘不張，肩不鬆，胸不開，氣不通

In the 30s, when most of the public Taijiquan manuals started to become published, the emphasis on "hanxiong babei" was mainly borrowed from the other two "internal arts" and with the influence of people like Sun Lutang people were brought to believe (and many still do, also in the west) of purported commonalities between the three "internal arts".

As a matter of fact Li Yaxuan, one of the most prominent disciples of Yang Chengfu, made heavy remarks to Yang Chengfu's works and in particular addressed the "hanxiong" subject as early as the 60s. He clearly stated that "the term hanxiong babei does not appear in the older texts, but it is a rule for Xingyi and Bagua imported via the likes of Chen Weiming and Sun Lutang...".


YM

* which most probably come from his reading of the archery classic "Shooting Classic" where "hanxiong" (actually, here it is again "the chest cannot protrude") is among the main requirements

.

yes...

but think about it, and try it.

can you puff out the chest without drawing in your back. can you pull out your back without drawing in your chest...

Now try it with up and down; can you draw your chest down a little without your back drawing upward a little and the same starting with the back. Either it's me, and I find it pretty much impossible.... Or it's just the way we are made. I'm thinking, and hoping it's more of the latter! lol

When combined with drawing up at the crown, these are clever training/ postural devices. However we arrive there or the history of this or that lineage.

[Wuyizidi]

Yang Cheng-fu (1883 - 1936) famously said, "Sink the chest and pluck up the back. The chest is depressed naturally inward so that the ch'i can sink to the tan-t'ien [field of elixir]. Don't expand the chest: the ch'i gets stuck there and the body becomes top-heavy. The heel will be too light and can be uprooted. Pluck up the back and the ch'i sticks to the back; depress the chest and you can pluck up the back. Then you can discharge force through the spine. You will be a peerless boxer."

If you are a die hard Yang style practitioner it is an absolute to "pluck up the back." Yet, I have see enough Chinese Yang style students and masters develop chronic kyphosis as a result of following Yang's dictum.

What is the forum's thoughts. To what degree should the plucking up the back should be, slight, moderator, or to the degree of kyphosis? I will refrain at this point from giving my opinion, so to read responses and experiences from others.

The original word is Han Xiong Ba Bei 含胸拔背.
Han 含 is commonly, erroneously translated as sinking. Han in general means contain, or specifically holding something in your mouth (like a cough drop).
Ba 拔 mean pull or draw out (like a sword). Usually it means in upward direction.

A lot of these alignment cues are easier understood as what not to do. Taijiquan skill is about having the quality of a ball - any outside force landing on it, unless it's perfectly centered throughout the duration of that force (basically impossible), that force will cause the ball to rotate, and that in turn cause the pusher to be off-centered and maybe lose balance. In most applications, your hand/arm in front of your body that is in contact with the opponent is the front of the ball. Your back is the back of the ball. This is a pretty common body mechanics in internal martial art.

So the common misunderstanding is we have to think "yield opponent's force...". The ball has no intention. If you push it, it being a ball, will naturally rotate because of our off-centered push. It is we who cause ourselves to fall. The ball doesn't have to have any consciousness about 'borrowing opponent's force' or 'redirect opponent's force'. So the goal of our training, the reason we spend so much time practicing the form, is so our body can taken on all the natural qualities of the ball. Then in real fight, no matter what force land on it, the body moves naturally as result, without thinking, and solve the problem instantaneously, naturally.

In external martial art the skill and therefore body alignments are different. For example in Shaolin Quan the chest sticks out. It's correct for them because they don't care about having the quality of a ball. If we do that in Taiji than the back of the ball will lose the necessary structure. So to do Han Xiong means to do the opposite of sticking the chest out. Here the use of word Han is important. Traditionally masters say Han here is short for bao han: big hearted inclusiveness that contain elements of humbleness and forgiveness. So that's the attitude we greet opponent's force - like a generous host. "Oh you want to come in, sure, we have room for you."

If you do this too much, that you end up with a hunched back. That violates the foundational goal that all of these alignment cues are trying to construct - a centered (not have a basic, permanent bias/leaning to any direction), neutral (equal amount of open space on all sides) spine. Martial art is art of movement. A centered, neutral spine fulfills the 2 opposite requirements for the body in martial art/sports: stability (ability to remain in place despite outside force) and mobility (able to change and move into any shape and position quickly).

To cure the hunched back, we also do Ba Bei (pull the upper back straight up) at the same time. Traditionally there are 9 alignment cues, most of these are in pairs like Han Xiong Ba Bei so the alignment for that area of the body is balanced.

So how much Han is enough? In Wu style, the traditional cue is think your nipples melting like wax, converging on the navel. That's all.

In general, with all of these cues in internal martial art, the guideline is 'have that intention/image in the mind inside, but don't try to do it that big (really try to force it) with the body physically outside'.

[cloudz]

Nice! Wuyizidi it's always great to read your posts.

One thing of importance I have found is simply don't over do it. These things are meant to be 'fine'.. So coming back to the chest it's ok to feel a bit of suction sometimes - the front is yin and draws in - toward the dan tien makes sense (similar in ILC), but all these things are little tiny(micro) feeling this is enough to round the back a little and feel 'the expansion'.. melting nipples, wonderful!

My point is usually any major issues would be the result of putting too much force into it and or over doing it in some way. Maybe at the start over exaggerating can help as these things can be unusual and take time to get used to, but you do have to watch it.