Sparring with Push Hands and Sticky Hands

[marvin8]

That's absolutely not what Ralston did. Ralston showed how to trick the opponent to change the line of attack, something that the boxer did not.

Ralston never showed, "trick the opponent to change the line of attack."

In fact, he said the exact opposite, " In Cheng Hsin, we rarely do that. Most of the time we lead or get out of the way:"

IMO, What it should teach is the idea of change, not counter...taiji is about "change" understanding the transitions of change, when it starts, how it begins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjrKxXVBbmA&t=4s

I got the opposite message of what the demonstration was about: Don't change opponent's course of energy. Use his force against himself by leading him into "emptiness."

I am commenting on Ralston’s definition of stationary leading rollback in the video:
@ 7:17 The moment you (opponent) are thwarted, you know you are going to change. You (opponent) are going to do something else.
@ 8:18 In Cheng Hsin, we rarely do that. Most of the time we lead or get out of the way.

[windwalker]

The problem is that contrary to most of the people here, I've felt exactly what taijiquan is. This opened a few doors and shut many others. Open and close. I'm going through this exact same thing with the Wing Chun friend I made recently. He doesn't understand.

Begs the question of who needs to understand what..
by your own admission you could not handle the wing chun person expecting him to adhere to your lack of understanding. Understanding has to be shown and felt, not explained through words. In China when some one said they understand, it was expected that they could do what they understood not talk about it.

luck in your training.

I got the opposite message of what the demonstration was about: Don't change opponent's course of energy. Use his force against himself by leading him into "emptiness."

one can only lead by "change" the real question is what is changing and the time of the change...

To any who would question Peter's skill he seems very accessible, and gives many seminars.
He does answer his emails. [email protected]

[Bao]

Ralston never showed, "trick the opponent to change the line of attack."
In fact, he said the exact opposite, " In Cheng Hsin, we rarely do that. Most of the time we lead or get out of the way:"

From 8.40, at every try of the partner, I can see the partner change his line of attack several times. Ralston start with lifting his hand, the opponent goes after the arm, Ralston sinks it, the opponent goes after the arm again from a lower position and then change and pushes at Ralston's side and Ralston disappears. His hands up, goes down, his partner follows and changes several times. Ralston SHOWS exactly how to "trick the opponent to change the line of the attack". This is what he does. What he SAYS is not important. I see WHAT HE DOES. I always judge teachers on what they do, never on what they say or what they claim verbally that they do.

If you look at your example, the boxer just punch in one single direction, i.e. straight forward. There is no confusion, no change of the line go attack, not any change of intent. There are only focused attacks in straight lines, there's no leading or guiding the line of attack. It's completely different from what Ralston does.

[marvin8]

I got the opposite message of what the demonstration was about: Don't change opponent's course of energy. Use his force against himself by leading him into "emptiness."

one can only lead by "change" the real question is what is changing and the time of the change...

To any who would question Peter's skill he seems very accessible, and gives many seminars.
He does answer his emails. [email protected]

Can you give the time stamp where he said, "one can only lead by change?" Ralston never showed that. He clearly showed the opposite: How to not deflect, but lead the opponent by allowing him to continue on his energy course. Otherwise, the opponent can change.

It's a shame a good teacher like Ralston spends the time to clearly explain a concept. Then, the student does not get the concept taught. Instead, the student misunderstands the lesson to be the exact opposite.

@ 7:17:

The moment you (opponent) are thwarted, you know you are going to change. You (opponent) are going to do something else.

@ 8:18:

In Cheng Hsin, we rarely do that. Most of the time we lead or get out of the way.

[Subitai]

Bao wrote:
(1)I don't believe that it can be set up. How you use this strategy or if depends on your opponent's strategy and his intention. (2)A fast jabbing boxer it's not someone you try to lead into emptiness in this manner. His method is limited to a certain type of situation.

It absolutely can be set up and you answered your own question with my own previous thoughts.

(1st) It is possible to set up...All you need to do is engage your opponent in such a way that he becomes willing to give you energy that you can follow. Then, the more predictable you can set him up the better.

Leading a bull through the red cape is not the same as forcing it or set it up to move in a certain manner. When you guide it, you guide an existing movement. If a person has a very focused intent to run you down in a straight line, it can be very, very hard and probably impossible to guide him in another direction. What the boxer did is something else. He feinted and timed his punch, slipping away and punching at the same time. That's absolutely not what Ralston did. Ralston showed how to trick the opponent to change the line of attack, something that the boxer did not. The boxer that got hit did not change the line of attack, he attacked and hit the air because the other person was not there. It's definitely not the same.

I don't believe that it's possible to force this leading as Ralston shows. You can do it if the attacker is not committed to attack in a straight line. Or you can fool him to attack in another line before his attack is fully committed. Ralston's partner did not show any committed attack.

As I knew this would be a can o worms (SIGH!!!)

My original comment wasn't to argue with anybody at all. I said that Ralston has HIS version of Leading...and that coincidentally;

what he is ALSO doing is allowing his student to become "EMPTY" as well. (can o worms)

When you allow someone to become empty (Long in my version), you don't try to GUIDE anyone in ANY direction... You simply allow the energy to continue in it's path until it's Empty or void of energy. Meaning you literally avoid it's path and remove yourself from that direction, that's it! I can't understand why people have a problem with this concept???? This is exactly what Ralston is doing...he simply gets out of the way. I know because I do the same thing...easily I might add. But at the correct times.

I gave you a perfectly viable way to explain how this is set up in Taiji push hands... One that exactly pertains to the title of this thread.

Did you watch the same "Floyd Mayweather" boxing video that Marvin8 posted that I did??????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pOCFuBDKDI Please take a close look at it again between 17 secs - 40 secs.

*What Floyd did was allow the jab to become long or empty, as in not try to redirect it at all. AFTER... and I repeat AFTER it was empty (fully extended), Floyd then counter punches.

I'm sorry Bao but if you look at that time stamp and think that Floyd is:

Bao wrote: "What the boxer did is something else. He feinted and timed his punch, slipping away and punching at the same time."

....then I seriously question your knowledge and powers of perception. You are funny dude...are you trolling as joke or something?

[Bao]

I'm sorry Bao but if you look at that time stamp and think that Floyd is:

Bao wrote: "What the boxer did is something else. He feinted and timed his punch, slipping away and punching at the same time."

....then I seriously question your knowledge and powers of perception. You are funny dude...are you trolling as joke or something?

I am no boxer, I can't explain what I saw the boxers did better than this. What Ralston did and explained was something different than I saw in the boxer vid.

Again, if you read my comment above, the opponent in the boxer vid DID NOT change the lines of the attacks. But Ralston made his partner change the line of the attacks. IMO, both the methods and what the opponents did in the different vids are completely different. They cannot even be compared. If you can't understand the difference, I won't try explain it further. Maybe we have very different experience on this or similar matters, so maybe we might look at the things differently. Or maybe we approach it differently. I see no similarity what so ever.

... BTW, I have never ever been called troll on this board through the 15 years I've been a member on the EF and RSF... If you have been on board some time, you should know me better than make such ridiculous remarks. Juvenile behaviour is something the very most of the RSF members have past already a long time ago.

[windwalker]

Can you give the time stamp where he said, "one can only lead by change?" Ralston never showed that. He clearly showed the opposite: How to not deflect, but lead the opponent by allowing him to continue on his energy course. Otherwise, the opponent can change.

It's a shame a good teacher like Ralston spends the time to clearly explain a concept. Then, the student does not get the concept taught. Instead, the student misunderstands the lesson to be the exact opposite.

must be the medium, I never said "he" said that.

"I" said that. "one can only lead by change" what has to change, why, timing, and how is another matter.

Not going to argue what you see and understand vs what I see and understand...no point. His clip is for those there, not for those viewing here. They get it and can feel it, or ask about it..Some here seem not to....its not the point of this thread btw.

If one has questions about the clip, its pretty easy why not just ask Peter about it,
or better yet attend one of his seminars.

some say he doesnt do or know taiji...mmm

Tai Chi Body-Mind

So who is this course for? It is for those who practice a set of t'ai chi movements but who want to go deeper with it, make more progress and develop in the ways they dreamed when first taking up t'ai chi. It is also for those t'ai chi players who want to improve their relationship with their body and develop a more effortless and effective level of physical skill in whatever they do.

This course was created for you by Master Peter Ralston. Ralston began studying t’ai chi at the age of 19, having already had a decade of martial training, and having achieved several black belts in different arts. Over the years he studied with top teachers in the US and Asia. In 1978, when he won the full contact World Championships held in China (the first non-Asian to do so) he was acknowledged by the World T’ai Chi Conference as winning his fights with t’ai chi (apparently his name was the only one mentioned at the conference).

As far as it's known, no one has ever used t’ai chi so effectively in such a full contact tournament. He has studied and taught t’ai chi for 40 years, and is considered by many to be the most authoritative mind in the field of internal martial arts today.

http://chenghsin.com/ecourse-taichi-body-mind.html

but some here feel he doesn't know taiji..

ok

maybe they need to let him know,,,,

[Subitai]

I'm sorry Bao but if you look at that time stamp and think that Floyd is:

Bao wrote: "What the boxer did is something else. He feinted and timed his punch, slipping away and punching at the same time."

....then I seriously question your knowledge and powers of perception. You are funny dude...are you trolling as joke or something?

I am no boxer, I can't explain what I saw the boxers did better than this. What Ralston did and explained was something different than I saw in the boxer vid.

Again, if you read my comment above, the opponent in the boxer vid DID NOT change the lines of the attacks. But Ralston made his partner change the line of the attacks. IMO, both the methods and what the opponents did in the different vids are completely different. They cannot even be compared. If you can't understand the difference, I won't try explain it further. Maybe we have very different experience on this or similar matters, so maybe we might look at the things differently. Or maybe we approach it differently. I see no similarity what so ever.

... BTW, I have never ever been called troll on this board through the 15 years I've been a member on the EF and RSF... If you have been on board some time, you should know me better than make such ridiculous remarks. Juvenile behaviour is something the very most of the RSF members have past already a long time ago.

Relax dude...I guess you couldn't tell I was joking when I asked you that?

You might have me confused with someone else...I never put Ralston and Floyd in the same camp (in my original comments) the only thing I said about Floyd was not to box a boxer and that I would rather face him without gloves on...in order to grapple him. It was a side comment to Marvin8 cause he posted it.

Lastly, you are connecting that you think Ralston is getting his students to change lines of attack and confusing it with my simple observation. "that he simply gets out of the way". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfpxPz6JsdY

Ralston puts his hand up...when the student moves forward, he gets out of the way and makes him empty. That was my original observation and that hasn't changed.

[Bao]

Relax dude...I guess you couldn't tell I was joking when I asked you that?

Maybe not... I've been working a hell lot the last days and have had very little sleep. It might affect my humor as well as my capacity to express my thoughts clearly...

Ralston puts his hand up...when the student moves forward, he gets out of the way and makes him empty. That was my original observation and that hasn't changed.

That's one way to express it, sure. I commented on your response and the video at the same time. The result of what Ralston did might become a chasing game. The boxer vid was IMO better in this respect as he totally got out of the way. I would like to see more of this from Tai Chi people, completely getting out of the way and force the opponent to re-target instead of letting him stay on target.

[Appledog]

Hello! Originally I wanted to have a "cool post count" of 108, or something like that (something associated with Tai Chi) but that does not seem possible here. Therefore I am editing this post to point out that users here cannot delete their own posts. I do not understand why users have the ability to edit their posts but not to delete their posts.

[marvin8]

Overall, I don't think the arts are compatible from a training perspective and I have great respect for wing chun, but the fact of the matter is that it trains you to stop and start, and all I can say is from our training that has come out as a negative point (something I want to do) and that alone scares me away from getting too deep into Wing Chun. If I wanted to learn Wing Chun I think I could become a great fighter in a short time, even just a few months, esp given my foundation. But I would be throwing my tai chi in the garbage forever. I already feel some minor kinks while standing. He doesn't understand this and feels they compliment each other. But there is hope. He wants me to teach him some qigong, and standing, and possibly some tai chi. If he gets it he gets it, if not it will have been an interesting week or two. More to report when there is something substantial

Thanks for posting some of your thoughts on the differences you see. I am not familiar with Ralston's curriculum. However, he does include exercises that start from absence of contact. That may be to bridge from push hands to fighting.

You may have interest (or not) in Clive Potter's videos, showing how Tai Chi compliments Ving Tsun. I found them interesting.

Published on Sep 3, 2014:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X96FVUwOCwA

Published on Oct 1, 2014:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itPbtpyruYc